MAHESWAR PANIKA Vs. URBA PANIKA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition challenges the order dated 19.04.2016 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Kantabanji in C.S. No.34 of 2014. By the said order, learned trial court rejected the applications of defendant no.2 under Order 1 Rule 10 C.P.C. to implead the lis pendens purchaser and others whose names have been recorded in the remarks column of ROR as defendants.

(2.) Opposite party no.1 as plaintiff instituted the suit for partition impleading the petitioner and opposite party nos.2 to 5 as defendants. Pursuant to issuance of summons, the defendant nos.1 to 3 entered appearance and filed written statement denying the assertions made in the plaint. While the matter stood thus, the defendant no.2 filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10 C.P.C. to implead the lis pendens purchaser as well as the persons whose names find place in the remarks column of ROR as defendants. It is stated that the plaintiff has sold some portions of the suit land by means of a registered sale deed to one Ratindra Kumar Rai and others. The name of other intervenors has been recorded in the remarks column of the ROR. The plaintiff filed objection. Learned trial court came to hold that the plaintiff is the master of his suit. He will decide to whom he will implead as a party. If any necessary party has not been impleaded as party, the defendant may bring that fact to the notice of the plaintiff in his written statement and may take the plea of non-joinder of necessary parties. In such a contingency, the plaintiff may implead him as a party. Held so, learned trial court rejected the application.

(3.) Heard Mr.B.B. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner. None appears for the opposite parties in spite of valid service of notice.