SRINIBASH MOHANTY Vs. KALPANA JENA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition challenges the order dated 28.6.2018, passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kujang, in C.S. No.122 of 2018, whereby and whereunder, the trial court has allowed the application of the plaintiff under Order 6 Rule 17 Civil Procedure Code for amendment of the plaint.

(2.) Plaintiff-Opposite party instituted the suit for declaration of easementary right over the suit property, confirmation of possession, recovery possession, in the event he is dispossessed during pendency of the suit, demarcation of the land and permanent injunction against the defendant-petitioner. The case of the plaintiff-opposite party is that she is the owner of the suit property. She has constructed a dwelling house over the same and residing therein. She received a notice from the Tahasidlar, Kujang that the land appertaining to Khata No.608, Plot No.990, Ac.0.07 dec. shall be demarcated on 21.4.2018 by the Amin. The R.I., Rahama Circle called upon the defendant to produce the record and map of Khata No.608, Plot No.990. The defendant produced the same. She ascertained that the land has been mutated in the name of the defendant. Defendant asserted that he has purchased the land from the recorded owner. After measurement, defendant threatened to dispossess her from the suit plot. According to the plaintiff, she is in possession of Plot No.990 from 1993 and amalgamated the suit plot with Plot No.991. She is using the Plot No.900 for her ingress and egress.

(3.) While matter stood thus, the plaintiff filed an application under Order 6 rule 17 Civil Procedure Code to incorporate certain facts and implead Collector, Jagatsinghpur and Tahasildar, Kujanga as defendants. It is stated that in I.A. No.111 of 2018 filed under Order 39 Rule 1 CPC, the defendant in his showcause stated that the land appertaining to Khata No.608, Plot No.990, Ac.0.07 dec. was recorded in favour of Maheswar Senapati and others in the Consolidation ROR, published in the year 1986. They sold the same to defendant and one Anil Moharana on 03.07.2015. Thereafter, the land was mutated in favour of the defendant. On enquiry, plaintiff came to know that the land has been wrongly recorded in the name of the defendant in the consolidation ROR.In the proposed amendment, the plaintiff seeks to incorporate the fact that Plot No.990 appertaining to sabik Plot No.567, Ac.0.44 dec. was recorded in the name of Madhu Senapati and others. Out of Ac.0.44 dec, the State Government has acquired Ac.0.28 dec. for construction of Cuttack-Paradeep State Highway. Out of the remaining part of Ac.0.16 dec., the recorded tenant has alienated Ac.0.05 dec. to one Radhanath Baral in the year 1967 and further alienated Ac.0.04 dec. to Gunanidhi Baral. After their death, her husband inherited the property and sold the same to her. The ROR.has been published in her name. The recorded owner has transferred remaining portion of land i.e. Ac.0.07 dec. to Taramani Dei and Sapani Baral and Gani Baral. Their names have been recorded in the consolidation ROR.The vendor has no title over the same. The suit land is adjoining to Cuttack-Paradeep State Highway. The Collector, Jagatsinghpur and Tahasildar, Kujang are necessary parties to the suit. Defendant filed objection stating inter alia that no notice was issued to the defendants sought to be impleaded as parties to the suit, under Sec. 80 CPC.