LAXMIDEVI AGRAWAL Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ application under Art. 227 of the Constitution, the petitioner seeks quashment of an order dated 13.12.2010 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Bolangir in C.S. No.63 of 2008 rejecting her application under Order-1, Rule-10 of the Code of Civil Procedure to implead one Bhanumati Dash and the legal heris of Debi Prasad Dash as parties to the suit.

(2.) Heard learned counsel for the parties. I have gone through the order in question.

(3.) The opposite party no.3 as the plaintiff has filed the above noted suit for declaration of his right, title and interest over suit schedule 'A' and 'B' lands and for confirmation of possession with the relief of permanent injunction. In the suit, the said opposite party o.3 as the plaintiff had arraigned opposite party nos.1 and 2 of the present writ application as the defendants. Later on an application under Order-1, Rule-10 of the Code by the opposite party no.3 (plaintiff) and upon grant of leave, this petitioner has come to be arraigned as one of the defendants. The suit then proceeded and when it was posted for argument, this petitioner (defendant no.3) filed a petition under Order-1, Rule-10 of the Code for bringing one Bhanumati Dash and legal heirs of Debi Prasad Dash to the arena of the suit. It is pertinent to state here that this petitioner has been arraigned in the suit as one of the defendants on the allegation by the plaintiff-opposite party no.3 that she has been creating disturbance in possession of the plaintiff in so far as the suit land is concerned. This petition was filed when the suit was posted for argument stating that those persons are to be added as parties since schedule 'A' land has been settled in the name of Debi Prasad Dash and Bhanumati Dash by an order in a Mutation Case followed by issuance of record of right. It is pertinent to state here that this petitioner after being arraigned as one of the defendants has been contesting the suit without pleading.