MANGRA MUNDA Vs. BHANUA MUNDA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved by order dated 14.2.2014 in Title Suit No. 323 of 2008, the present writ petition has been filed. The petitioner is plaintiff in Title Suit No. 323 of 2008. During the pendency of the suit on the allegation that one Dwarka Manjhi with the help of some antisocial element started digging trench over the plot No. 1001 under R.S. Khata No. 87 and threatened the plaintiff, at the instance of the plaintiff, a proceeding under Sec. 144 Cr.P.C. was initiated in which a show -cause notice was issued to the opposite parties however, the said proceeding was dropped observing that a suit with respect to land in question is pending. The plaintiff alleging that the said Dwarka Manjhi has started construction of building, filed an application under Order I Rule 10 CPC for his impleadment in Title Suit No. 323 of 2008.

(2.) Mr. Atanu Banerjee, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the property over which Dwarka Manjhi has laid a claim is the suit property in Title Suit No. 323 of 2008 and therefore, to avoid multiplicity of litigation the said Dwarka Manjhi should have been added as party -respondent in the pending suit. I find that title suit was filed for declaration of confirmation of plaintiff's possession over the Schedule "C" properties and for a decree of perpetual injunction restraining the defendant Nos. 1 to 13. A further prayer seeking declaration that the Power of Attorney No. IV/989 dated 24.5.06 executed by the defendant Nos. 1 to 3 in favour of defendant No. 5 is illegal, null and void, has also been made in the title suit. The Plot No. 1001 under Khata No. 87 is part of Schedule "C" properties however, mere objection of said Dwarka Manjhi would not entitle the plaintiff to seek relief against him in the pending suit. On an anticipation that the plaintiff could have filed application for amendment and sought a relief against the said Dwarka Manjhi, application for impleadment of the said party cannot be allowed. Moreover, in Title Suit No. 323 of 2008, the cause of action for filing the suit against the defendants was execution of Power of Attorney by defendants Nos. 1 to 3 in favour of defendant No. 5 on the basis of which the defendants had allegedly been trying to disturb possession of the plaintiff. Admittedly, the said Dwarka Manjhi is not claiming right over plot No. 1001 under R.S. Khata No. 87 by virtue of a power of attorney. Normally, multiplicity of litigations should be avoided however, impleadment of a party against whom a relief can be sought on a different cause of action, cannot be permitted. I find no error in the impugned order 14.2.2014 and according, the writ petition is dismissed.