DEEPAK SINGH Vs. SANDHYARANI GIRI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition challenges the order dated 4.2.2016 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Talcher in C.S No. 39 of 2012 whereby and where under the learned trial court rejected the application of the petitioner under Order 1, Rule 10 CPC for impleadment.

(2.) Opposite party no.1 as plaintiff instituted C.S. No. 39 of 2012 in the court of learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Talcher for mandatory injunction impleading opposite party no.2 as defendant. The petitioner, who is the son of opposite party no.2, instituted C.S. No. 129 of 2005 in the same court impleading opposite parties and others for declaration of sale deed dated 20.11.2002 as void, declaration of right, title and interest and possession over the suit property and permanent injunction. The schedule property in both the suits is same. While the matter stood thus, the petitioner filed an application under Order 1, Rule 10 CPC in C.S. No. 39 of 2012 stating therein that he has filed C.S. No. 129 of 2005 impleading the parties in the suit for a declaration of right, title and interest and possession over the suit land, wherein the validity of the sale deed dated 20.11.2002 has been challenged. He is in possession of the suit schedule property. The plaintiff filed an objection to the same. Learned trial court came to hold that the intervenor is the son of the defendant. In the event he is allowed to be impleaded in the suit on the ground that he is in possession of the suit property, then tomorrow the other family members of the defendant would come forward to stake claim. Further, the intervenor has not stated that defendant has acted adverse to his interest. Held so, learned trial court rejected the application.

(3.) Heard Mr. Ramakanta Kar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Durga Prasad Jena, learned counsel for the opposite party no.1 and Mr. Kamal Ray, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2.