RAMAKRUSHNA MUDRA Vs. RAGHUNATH MUDRA & OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition assails the order dated 15.2.2016 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Puri in Civil Suit No. 81 of 2004. By the said order, the learned trial court rejected the application of the petitioner under Order 1, Rule 10 C.P.C. for impleadment.

(2.) Opposite party no.1 as plaintiff instituted Civil Suit No. 81 of 2004 in the court of the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Puri for declaration that he has right, title and interest to perform Mudra Seva Pali in Shree Jagannath Temple, Puri as the successor of late Jagannath Mudra, the order passed in Sadhi Bandha Misc. Case No. 4 of 1995 is illegal and inoperative and for permanent injunction impleading the opposite parties 2 to 6 as defendants. The case of the plaintiff is that Artatrana Mudra is the common ancestor of the parties. He had three sons, namely, Loknath, Chintamani and Jagannath. They were performing Mudra Seva in Shree Jagannath Temple. Mudra Seva is heritable and transferable. Pursuant to the order dated 13.5.1980 in Case No. 6 of 1979 of the Administrator, Shri Jagannath Temple, Puri defendant no.5, Jagannath Mudra was performing Mudra Seva. After the death of Lokanath, Chintamani and Jagannath, the plaintiff and defendant nos. 1 to 4 stepped into their shoes. His father Jagannath died on 21.9.1987. Thereafter he applied to defendant no.5 to perform the said Seva, which was numbered as Misc. Case No. 4 of 1995. As per the temple custom, the said permission is known as Sadhi Bandha ceremony. Defendant no.2 filed objection disputing the status of the plaintiff. By order dated 3.12.2003, defendant no.5 rejected the application of the plaintiff. With this factual scenario, the suit has been filed.

(3.) After closure of evidence from both sides, the petitioner filed an application under Order 1, Rule 10 C.P.C for impleadment. It is stated that the petitioner is the elder brother of the plaintiff. The plaintiff had instituted O.S.No.216/85 of 1992/1991 in the court of the learned Additional Sub-Judge, Puri in respect of immovable property admitting the petitioner as his brother. The plaintiff has also executed registered power of attorney in his favour on 17.8.1984 admitting the petitioner as his elder brother. He has direct interest in respect of the subject matter of suit and as such a necessary party to the suit. It is further stated that by suppressing the material facts, the suit has been filed without impleading him as a party. On 31.1.2016 he came to know about the pendency of the suit. The plaintiff filed objection to the same. It is stated that the real name of the intervenor-petitioner is Rama Krushna Panda. He is the son of Dasarathi Panda of Goudabada Sahi. He has been set up by defendant nos. 1 to 3. It is further stated that Jagannath Mudra in his life time treated Rama Krushna Panda as his foster son. While the plaintiff was a minor, his residential house was purchased in his name along with the intervenor. By plying fraud the intervenor mortgaged the entire property in favour of Puri H.T. Cooperative Society Ltd. Thereafter he filed a partition suit, being No. O.S. No. 216/85 of 92/91. The suit was compromised. Thereafter he had paid the entire dues of the bank and the said residential property was recorded in his name. It is further stated that the temple administration has recently decided to make census of sevayats of Shree Jagannath Temple for issuance of health card. Some persons inimical to him recorded the names of Rama Krushna Mudra and his family members. Thereafter he filed an application on 21.3.2014 to delete the name of intervenor along with the names of his family members from the list of Mudra Sevak. Accordingly, the temple administration obtained a report from the Commander, Shree Jagannath Temple, who reported that there is no such Mudra Sevak, namely, Rama Krushna Mudra and, accordingly issued notice both the parties. After appearance the petitioner filed an affidavit stating that he is not Rama Krushna Mudra and his name is Rama Krushna Panda. The statement of the intervenor was recorded on 20.8.2014. The intervenor-petitioner stated that his actual name is Rama Krushna Panda although in the ration card, BPL Card, Bank Passbook, his name was recorded as Rama Krushna Mudra son of Jagannath Mudra. He is not a Mudra Sevak although in the census book of Shri Jagannath Temple Administration, his name has been included in the list of Mudra Sevak. He does not have any objection if his name is deleted from Mudra Sevak list. He further stated the he belongs to Patribadu Sevak and Sabat Seva. In view of the same, the intervenor-petitioner is neither a necessary party nor proper party to the suit. The learned trial court rejected the said petition. The instant petition has been filed to lacinate the said order.