BAMAN CHANDRA ACHARYA Vs. BALARAM ACHARYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONERS 2 and 3 are respectively the son and daughter of petitioner No. 1. Title suit No. 197 of 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the suit) was filed by oppparty 1 (Plaintiff) in the Court of the Munsif. Second Court, Cuttack on 5-10-50. for partition. Plaintiff's title is based on purchase of eight pies interest of madhusudhan Das on 5-10-55 in court auction on 7-5-1956 oi Surendranath Sur and others (defendants 10 (a) to (f)) According to the plaintiff, his vendors defendants 19 (a) to (f) had purchased the property and obtained delivery of possession in 1936 A preliminary decree was passed e. x parle on 4-11-58. The petitioners claimed two annas eleven pies and 1 Biswa interest in the suit properties on the strength of three registered sale deeds executed in favour of the deceased wife of petitioner 1 on 30-5-47. 1-1-49 and 3-1-49 As the tenure vested in the State of Orissa. there was dispute between the plaintiff and the petitioners regarding payment of compensation Order dated 19-1-62 of the Compensation officer, Tenure Section, in Compensation Case No. 470 of 1960, shows that the three sale deeds of the petitioners and the preliminary decree in the suit were produced before that officer This compensation matter was carried to the Board of revenue and the plaintiff got compensation only in respect of seven pies interest in the entire tenure The order of the Board of Revenue was passed on 17-8-63 upholding claim of the petitioners to compensation On 6-4-64 plaintiff and the defendants filed a compromise petition in the suit. On 28-4 1964 the petitioners filed an application under Section 151 and Order 1 Rule 10, C P C praying that they should be impleaded as parties to the suit. On 15-5-1964 the application was rejected. Againsl the order rejecting the application of the petitioners to add them as parties to the suit the Civil Revision has been filed.

(2.) MR. Misra contends that the trial Court failed to exercise a jurisdiction vested in it, or, at any rate, acted in exercise of ita jurisdiction illegally and with material irregularity in not allowing the application of the petitioners to implead them as parties. This contention requires careful examination.

(3.) ORDER 1 Rule 10 (2 ). C. P. C. may be quoted the Court may at any stage of the proceedings, either upon or without the application of either party, and on such terms as may appear to the Court to be just, order that the name of any party improperly joined, whether as plaintiff or defendant, he struck out. and that the name of 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 the suit. be added. Thus two questions arise for consideration :