SOVAJINI PAITAL Vs. LAXMIPRIYA SAMANTRAY AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ASSAILING the order dated 28.2.2013 rejecting the application filed under Order 1, Rule 10, CPC in Annexure -5 by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Jagatsinghpur in C.S. No. 219 of 2011 vide Annexure -7, the petitioner has approached this Court in the present writ petition.

(2.) THE short fact of the case, in hand, is that the plaintiff -opposite party No. 1 filed a suit for eviction against defendant -opposite party No. 2 directing him to vacate the suit house standing over Hal Plot No. 158/469 under Khata No. 143 of mouza -Jayabada and for realization of a sum of Rs. 24,000/ - from him with interest along with other ancillary reliefs. The present petitioner filed another suit bearing Civil Suit No. 255 of 2010 against the plaintiff -opposite party No. 1 for declaration of right, title, interest and possession over the suit Plot No. 158/469 under Khata No. 143. Both the suits are pending before the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Jagatsinghpur for adjudication. The petitioner and the husband of the plaintiff -opposite party No. 1 are related as sister and brother and the petitioner purchased the suit land, but erroneously the same was recorded in the name of the present plaintiff -opposite party No. 1 for which Civil Suit No. 255 of 2010 has been filed by the petitioner seeking for declaration of right, title and interest over the suit land. In the said suit, it is stated that out of her own funds, she constructed a house on the suit plot and was staying there. But due to transfer of her husband, she let out the suit house to one Jyostnarani Nayak, W/o. Bibekananda Nayak on rent pursuant to the agreement executed on 1.7.2007. The plaintiff -opposite party No. 1 as such has no locus standi to file the suit for eviction against the defendant -opposite party No. 2, who is a tenant under the present petitioner and is residing in the house by executing an agreement and also paying rent. Therefore, the petitioner states that she being a necessary party to the suit filed by plaintiff -opposite party No. 1 bearing Civil Suit No. 255 of 2010, she should be impleaded as a party in the said suit.

(3.) ON consideration of such pleadings, the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Jagatsinghpur by order dated 28.2.2013 rejected the application filed by the petitioner seeking to implead her as a party in C.S. No. 219 of 2011, which was filed for eviction against the defendant -opposite party No. 2 by the plaintiff -opposite party No. 1 and stated that due to non -production of single scrap of paper to show that she has got interest in the suit property or she has purchased the suit plot No. 158/469 under Khata No. 143. Therefore, it can never be said that the petitioner is a necessary party in the suit and in her absence, no effective decree can be passed in the suit. Accordingly, the learned trial Court rejected the said application.