DATE: 31/10/2025
COURT: High Court of Orissa
BENCH: Justice Sashikanta Mishra
FACTS:
The petitioner, who was the plaintiff in
Civil Suit No. 496/2021 before the Senior Civil Judge, Baripada, filed a suit
seeking a decree for permanent injunction against the defendants from entering
the suit land, along with compensation of Rs.30,000 for disturbance of
possession. The petitioner claimed to have purchased
the suit land from its recorded owner, Narana Prasad Sahu, through a registered
sale deed dated May 21, 2019. The land, originally agricultural, was converted
to Gharabari (homestead) use through OLR Case No. 196/2020 and duly mutated in
her name. She alleged that the defendants uprooted her boundary pillars and
obstructed the construction of her boundary wall, compelling her to file the
suit after police inaction.
The original defendants, however, contended
that the suit land was jungle kisam (forest-type) land recorded as communal
property under Anabadi Khata and used by villagers for common purposes such as
a playground, grazing field, and public road. Subsequently, a group of
villagers (Opposite Parties 1–5) filed an application under Order I Rule 10 of
the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) to be impleaded as additional defendants,
asserting that the land was communal and that they had an interest in
protecting it. The trial court allowed their application, leading the
petitioner to file the present application under Article 227 of the
Constitution, challenging the trial court’s order of impleadment.
ISSUES:
The central issue before the High Court was
whether the trial court was justified in allowing the impleadment of Opposite
Parties 1–5 as defendants under Order I Rule 10 CPC, despite the petitioner’s
objection, and whether their inclusion was necessary for the effective
adjudication of the dispute concerning the allegedly communal land.
JUDGEMENT WITH REASONING:
The Orissa High Court set aside the trial
court’s order allowing the impleadment of Opposite Parties 1–5 as defendants
and dismissed their application under Order I Rule 10 CPC. The Court held that
the plaintiff, being dominus litis (master of the suit), cannot be compelled to
implead parties against her will unless their presence is necessary for
complete adjudication. It found that the trial court had failed to provide
valid reasons for the impleadment and that the interveners’ contentions merely
repeated the original defendants’ claims.
The Court reasoned that under Order I Rule
10(2) CPC, a party can be added to a suit only if their presence is essential
for the court to completely and effectively adjudicate the issues in dispute.
However, in the present case, the third-party interveners did not bring any new
or distinct claims beyond those already asserted by the existing defendants.
Their petition under Order I Rule 10 CPC was a verbatim repetition of the
original defendants’ written statement, which already represented the collective
interest of the villagers. Therefore, their addition would neither contribute
to a more effective adjudication nor serve any independent purpose. The Court
further observed that the plaintiff, as dominus litis, has the autonomy to
decide against whom relief is sought, and she cannot be forced to litigate
against individuals she has not chosen to sue.
Additionally, the Court noted that the
trial court’s reasoning, that impleadment would prevent multiplicity of
proceedings was legally unsustainable because it failed to explain how the
addition of new parties would achieve that purpose. Relying on precedents such
as Sudhamayee Pattnaik v. Bibhu Prasad Sahoo (2022) 17 SCC 286 and Kamal Kumar
Bhawasinka v. SMV Beverages (P) Ltd. (2022 SCC OnLine Ori 3480), the Court
reaffirmed that defendants cannot compel a plaintiff to implead additional
parties unless their presence is indispensable. Since the plaintiff sought no
relief against the proposed parties and the trial court cited no compelling
reason for their inclusion, the order was held to be arbitrary and contrary to
settled law. Hence, the High Court allowed the petition and dismissed the
impleadment application.
ANALYSIS:
The Orissa High Court’s ruling in this case
reinforces the foundational principle of “dominus litis”, emphasizing that the
plaintiff has the absolute right to choose against whom to seek relief and
cannot be compelled to implead parties unnecessarily. The Court’s decision
highlights a careful balance between ensuring complete adjudication of disputes
and protecting the plaintiff’s procedural autonomy. By setting aside the trial
court’s order of impleadment, the High Court clarified that Order I Rule 10(2)
CPC is not a tool for indiscriminate inclusion of parties but must be invoked
only when a party’s participation is indispensable for resolving the matter
effectively. The Court’s scrutiny revealed that the interveners’ claims were
not independent or distinct but merely echoed the existing defendants’ stance
that the land was communal in nature. Thus, their addition would only burden
the proceedings without aiding in a just determination of the dispute.
Furthermore, the judgment carries broader
procedural significance as it curbs the misuse of impleadment provisions to
delay or complicate civil proceedings. The Court rightly observed that
preventing multiplicity of litigation cannot be a ground for impleadment unless
it directly aids in resolving the core dispute between the existing parties. By
referencing precedents such as Sudhamayee Pattnaik v. Bibhu Prasad Sahoo and
Kamal Kumar Bhawasinka v. SMV Beverages (P) Ltd., the High Court reaffirmed
judicial consistency on the subject and underscored that only necessary and
proper parties should be added to a suit. The ruling not only protects the
efficiency of civil litigation but also upholds the plaintiff’s right to a
focused and fair adjudicatory process, ensuring that procedural law serves the
ends of justice rather than becoming an instrument of obstruction.
info@adhwaitha.com