BHANUMANI SAHU Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners being aggrieved with the impugned order passed by the learned First Additional Civil Judge (Sr.Division), Bhubaneswar in Title Suit No. 17 of 2002 dated 19.03.2008 has approached this Court under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India praying therein to quash the impugned order under Annexure-1 and permitting the petitioner no.4 to be impleaded as a plaintiff in Title Suit No. 17 of 2002.

(2.) Perused the impugned order passed by the learned First Additional Civil Judge (Sr.Divn.), Bhubaneswar dated 19.3.2008 as at Annexure-1. The intervenor petitioner being a lis pendence purchaser of the suit land applied to the trial court to be impleaded as a plaintiff contending therein that he had purchased the suit property from the plaintiffs on the strength of a registered sale deed and the relief sought for in the original plaint is obviously the same relief for the intervenor petitioner and thus he having vital interest in the litigation and for effective adjudication of the suit he may be impleaded as a plaintiff. The learned First Additional Civil Judge (Sr.Divn.), Bhubaneswar by the impugned order disallowed the prayer of the intervenor petitioner on the ground that the intervenor petitioner is a defendant in Civil Suit No.455 of 2003 and when the said suit is being heard analogously along with Title Suit No.17 of 2002 and plaintiffs in the said suit are taking steps and besides that when the plaintiffs have not arrayed the intervenor petitioner as a co plaintiff, the prayer of the intervenor petitioner being devoid of merit is liable for rejection.

(3.) Mr. Sarangi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners while challenging the impugned order contended that the learned court below committed gross illegality in disallowing the prayer of the intervenor petitioner and the learned court below failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested on it under Order 22, Rule 10(1) of the C.P.C. as well as Order 1, Rule 10 of the C.P.C. and thus the impugned order at Annexure-1 needs to be set aside and the intervenor petitioner may be impleaded as a plaintiff in Title Suit No.17 of 2002.