PRAFULLATA MOHAPATRA Vs. BIJAYA RAM DASH & ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenging, inter alia, the order dated 22.9.2008 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), 1st Court, Cuttack in T.S. No.442 of 1994, the present application has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. By the said order, learned trial court allowed the application filed by the opposite party no.1 under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC for impleadment.

(2.) This case has a chequered history. The petitioner as plaintiff instituted T.S. No.442 of 1994 in the court of the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), 1st Court, Cuttack for specific performance of contract impleading opposite party no.2 as defendant. The suit was dismissed. Thereafter, she filed RFA No.58 of 2003 in the court of the learned District Judge, Cuttack. Learned District Judge reversed the judgment and decree of the learned trial court and allowed the appeal. Thereafter, the defendant filed RSA No.183 of 2004 before this Court. On 16.5.2007, the same was dismissed.

(3.) Mr. Pattnaik, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the intervenor is neither necessary nor proper party to the suit. Thus the learned trial court has committed manifest illegality in allowing the application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC.