KHETRABASI CHHATORAY Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revisional application is directed against an order of the learned Munsif of Puri allowing an application under Order 1, Rule 10, C. P. C. for addition of Opposite Parties Nos. 2 to 23 as defendants in the suit.

(2.) THE petitioner as plaintiff brought O. S. No. 56 of 1979 (I) in the Court of the Munsif, Puri for a declaration of his title to and confirmation of possession over the disputed land, for a direction to correct the relevant record -of -rights and for a permanent injunction restraining the opposite party No. 1 (State of Orissa) from distrubing his possession. The opposite party Nos. 2 to 23 filed a petition under Order 1, Rule 10, C. P. C. for being impleaded as defendants on the ground that the suit plot is a tank and they have a right of user of its water. They further alleged that during the settlement proceedings, the petitioner was attempting to get the land recorded exclusively in his own name, but on their objection the Settlement Authorities made the correct entries in the record -of -rights. The petitioner filed counter contending that the opposite party Nos. 2 to 23 have no interest in the land in question and it was not necessary to implead them as defendants. The learned Munsif having allowed the petition under Order 1, Rule 10, C. P. C. the petitioners has come up in revision.

(3.) A person is a necessary party if in his absence, no effective decree can be passed. He is a proper party if his presence is necessary for an effectual and complete adjudication. Order 1, Rule 10 (2), C. P C. runs as follows : -