JHAMPURI BEWA Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN T. S. No. 140 of 1964 in the Court of the Munsif, Kendrapara, there are three defendants. They are State of Orissa, Tahsildar, Kanika and S. D. O. Kendrapara. Opposite parties Nos. 4 to 7 who are residents of village Kandira, the village of the plaintiff, filed an application on 30-10-64 praying that they should be impleaded as party-defendants. Plaintiff's case is that she reclaimed 0. 06 acre in plot No. 247 in village Kandira and is in possession of the same by amalgamating it with her own homestead area for more than 20 years. The Chakla Kanungo of Aul submitted a report in February, 1963 stating therein that the plaintiff was in possession only for 15 years. Thereupon the defendant No. 2 started an encroachment case No. 4 of 1963-64 against the plaintiff. The plaintiff filed the suit for declaration of her occupancy right over the suit plot, confirmation of possession and for permanent injunction. Defendants 1 to 3 have appeared in this suit, but have not filed any written statement. The learned Trial Court heard the plaintiff and opposite parties no. 4 to 7 on the latter's application under Order 1 Rule 10 (2) of the Code of Civil procedure. On 10-12-64 he allowed the application and directed the plaint to be amended. Against this order the Civil Revision has been filed. The correctness of the order of the learned Munsif is under challenge.

(2.) ORDER 1 Rule 10 (2) of the Code of Civil Procedure lays down that the Court may add at any stage of the proceeding either upon or without application of either party, any person who ought to have been joined, whether as plaintiff or defendant, or whose presence before the Court may be necessary in order to enable the Court effectually and completely to adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in this suit.

(3.) THE scope of this rule had been discussed fully in Damodar Mohapatra v. State of Orissa, Civil Revn. No. 201 of 1962 (Orissa) and in Narahari Mohanty v. Ghanashyam Bal, ILR (1963) Cut. 841 : (A1r 1903 Orissa 186 ). In the former case this Court took the view that the expression "all the questions involved in this suit" must be construed in the wider and not in the narrower sense. Whether the wider or the narrower view is accepted, one matter is however, clear that before the court finally determines the merits of an application under Order 1 Rule 10 (2) of the Code of Civil Procedure he must be in possession of all the facts relating to all the questions involved in the suit. In this case admittedly written statements have not been filed by the defendants Nos. 1 to 3 against whom the suit had been brought. In the absence of their written statements the Court is not in a position to know the nature of the dispute between the plaintiff and defendants Nos. 1 to 3. Without knowing the issues between them the Court cannot exercise its discretion properly as to whether the application under Order 1 Rule 10 (2) of the code of Civil Procedure filed by opposite parties Nos. 4 to 7 would be allowed or not.