Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 416 (ORI)

Bhanumani Sahu v. State of Orissa

2012-09-21

B.K.MISRA

body2012
JUDGMENT B.K.MISRA, J 1. The petitioners being aggrieved with the impugned order passed by the learned First Additional Civil Judge (Sr.Division), Bhubaneswar in Title Suit No. 17 of 2002 dated 19.03.2008 has approached this Court under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India praying therein to quash the impugned order under Annexure-1 and permitting the petitioner no.4 to be impleaded as a plaintiff in Title Suit No. 17 of 2002. 2. Perused the impugned order passed by the learned First Additional Civil Judge (Sr.Divn.), Bhubaneswar dated 19.3.2008 as at Annexure-1. The intervenor petitioner being a lis pendence purchaser of the suit land applied to the trial court to be impleaded as a plaintiff contending therein that he had purchased the suit property from the plaintiffs on the strength of a registered sale deed and the relief sought for in the original plaint is obviously the same relief for the intervenor petitioner and thus he having vital interest in the litigation and for effective adjudication of the suit he may be impleaded as a plaintiff. The learned First Additional Civil Judge (Sr.Divn.), Bhubaneswar by the impugned order disallowed the prayer of the intervenor petitioner on the ground that the intervenor petitioner is a defendant in Civil Suit No.455 of 2003 and when the said suit is being heard analogously along with Title Suit No.17 of 2002 and plaintiffs in the said suit are taking steps and besides that when the plaintiffs have not arrayed the intervenor petitioner as a complain tiff, the prayer of the intervenor petitioner being devoid of merit is liable for rejection. 3. Mr. Sarangi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners while challenging the impugned order contended that the learned court below committed gross illegality in disallowing the prayer of the intervenor petitioner and the learned court below failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested on it under Order 22, Rule 10(1) of the C.P.C. as well as Order 1, Rule 10 of the C.P.C. and thus the impugned order at Annexure-1 needs to be set aside and the intervenor petitioner may be impleaded as a plaintiff in Title Suit No.17 of 2002. 4. Learned Additional Government Advocate on the other hand supporting the impugned order contended that the learned trial court did not commit any jurisdictional error which calls for any interference by this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 5. 4. Learned Additional Government Advocate on the other hand supporting the impugned order contended that the learned trial court did not commit any jurisdictional error which calls for any interference by this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 5. The only question that needs determination as to whether the petitioner no.4 being a pendente lite purchaser has locus standi to be impleaded as a party in Titile Suit No.17 of 2002. Perusal of the impugned order reveals that it is not a speaking order and a very cryptic and confusing one. From the impugned order it is seen that the learned trial court has rejected the petition of the intervenor petitioner on the ground that since in Civil Suit No.455 of 2003 the intervenor petitioner is one of the defendant and that suit is being heard with Title Suit No.17 of 2002 and when in Title Suit No.17 of 2002 the plaintiffs have not impleaded the intervenor petitioner as a co-plaintiff the intervenor petitioner cannot be impleaded as a co-plaintiff. Such conclusions of the learned trial court and especially the reasonings cannot be sustained in the eye of law and definitely I am in agreement with the contentions of Mr.Sarangi, learned counsel for the petitioners that failure of justice has occasioned. It is trite law that justice requires a pendente lite purchaser should be given opportunity to protect his right. The transferee pendente lite can be added as a proper party if his interest in the subject matter of the suit which is substantial in nature. The pendente lite purchaser would be entitled to or suffer the same legal rights and obligations of his vendor as may be eventually determined by the Court. In this context profitably I may refer to a very recent pronouncement of the Apex Court in the case of A. Nawab John & others –v-V.N.Subramaniyam. reported in (2012 (2) O.J.R. 255 (S.C.), and another reported case i.e., Smt. Saila Bala Dassi –v-Nirmala Sundari Dassi and another, AIR 1958 S.C. 394 . The Hon’ble Apex Court have observed that a pendente lite purchaser’s application for impleadment should normally be allowed or considered liberally. The intervenor petitioner being a pendente lite purchaser is entitled to be heard and is entitled to be impleaded in the suit or other proceedings where his predecessor in interest is made a party to the litigation. The Hon’ble Apex Court have observed that a pendente lite purchaser’s application for impleadment should normally be allowed or considered liberally. The intervenor petitioner being a pendente lite purchaser is entitled to be heard and is entitled to be impleaded in the suit or other proceedings where his predecessor in interest is made a party to the litigation. Order 1, Rule 10 C.P.C. enables the Court to add any person as a party at any stage of the proceedings if his presence before the Court is necessary in order to enable the Court to effectively and completely adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the suit. Avoidance of multiplicity of proceedings is also one of the object of the said provision of Order 1, Rule 10 of the C.P.C. If the application for impleadment is thrown out without a decision on the said question it may be that the petitioner no.4 (the intervenor) may come up with a separate suit to enforce his right which means multiplicity of proceedings. When from the impugned order at Annexure-1 it is seen that the intervenor petitioner has been arrayed as a defendant in another suit i.e., C.S. No.455 of 2003 and when the said suit is being tried analogously with T.S. No. 17 of 2002 it would have been prudent on the part of the learned trial court in allowing the prayer of the intervenor petitioner, namely the present petitioner to be impleaded as a party. 6. In the premises, from the aforesaid discussions, the impugned order at Annexure-1 is quashed. The intervenor petitioner, namely, the present petitioner be added as a defendant in Title Suit No.17 of 2002 and the learned trial court shall afford opportunity to the newly added party, namely, the present petitioner of filing his written statement, if any, and the learned trial court would soon thereafter proceed to take up the hearing of the suits, as the same has been delayed for more than a decade. Accordingly, the writ petition stands allowed. No costs.