G KAMESWAR RAO Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Plaintiffs have assailed the order of the trial court exercising the power under O.1, R.10(2), C.P.C. adding opposite parties Nos. 3 to 5 as party defendants to the suit. There is no dispute that the property in dispute was in custody of deceased G. Simadri Naidu who died as a bachelor in Government Hospital, Parlakhemundi on 4-9-1983. He was in Government quarters. On his death, the Sub-divisional Officer made an inventory. After the inventory was made, he directed deposit of the articles in the Treasury. Claiming to be the legal representatives entitled to be in custody of the properties now in deposit in the treasury, the plaintiffs filed the suit for a declaration that they are the legal representatives of the deceased G. Simadri Naidu and are entitled to the properties in the treasury. In the suit, the State of Orissa and the Sub-divisional Officer were the defendants. During pendency of the suit, opposite parties 3 to 5 filed three applications for being added as parties alleging that they had pledged some of the articles with deceased G. Simadri Naidu and accordingly, they should be added as defendants in the suit. The trial court having accepted the prayer and having directed them to be added as defendants, the plaintiffs have filed this Civil Revision. Both the parties accept that the order has been passed in exercise of the power vested.

(2.) Under O.1, R.10, C.P.C. no appeal lies against this order. The correctness of the order can be challenged under S.105, C.P.C. and O.43 R.1A, C.P.C. when appeal is filed against the decree. Normally, all wrong orders against which appeals do not lie are not to be interfered with in revision. Mr. Patnaik, however, submitted that after opposite parties are made parties and are allowed to contest the suit by filing written statement and leading evidence there would be no scope to challenge the order which would be of academic interest only. He submitted that the order directing the addition of opposite parties 3 to 5 as defendants would amount to exercise of jurisdiction with material irregularity by the trial court and unless interfered with in revision, the opposite party Nos. 3 to 5 would expand the scope of the suit to the prejudice of the plaintiffs. Mr. S.Kr. Mohanty, the learned counsel for opposite parties Nos. 3 to 5 submitted that the order is justified both in law and on the facts and would have the effect of avoiding multiple litigations.

(3.) In order to consider whether the addition of opposite parties Nos. 3 to 5 would amount to exercise of jurisdiction with material irregularity, the provision in O.1, R.10(2), C.P.C. is to be kept in view. It reads as follows :-