Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 159 (ORI)

Laxmi Narayan Mohapatra v. Rotary Club, Bhadrak

2013-05-31

B.K.MISRA

body2013
Judgment B.K. Misra, J. 1. The Petitioners in this Writ Petition challenges the legality & propriety of the Order Dated 15.10.2011 passed by the Learned Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Bhadrak in rejecting the petition by the Petitioners under Order 1, Rule-10 of the Civil Procedure Code (hereinafter referred to as "C.P.C."). I have heard Learned Counsel for the parties & also perused the record including the impugned order at Annexure-4. 2. The Opp. Party No. 1. has filed C.S. No. 606 of 2011 seeking relief to declare him as a lessee of the suit land under the Opp. Party No. 7 as well as for permanent injunction. The suit land admittedly belongs to Opp. Party No. 7-Nari-Kalyan Samittee, Bhadrak. The Opp. Party No. 1 through a lease deed No. 2064 dated 26.1.1977 obtained the suit land along with other properties to provide specialized maternity benefit by constructing a maternity ward & a child welfare centre for a period of 99 years. It is also stated that the Opp. Party No. 1 by spending huge sum of money constructed the maternity & child welfare centre as well as purchased medical equipments for the operation theatre & general ward. They also provided other facilities for the doctors, patients, nurses & staffs. The maternity centre has started in the name & style as "Rotary Seva Sadan" with effect from 13.7.1984. The said maternity centre is functioning under the direct control of the State Government & the Government is having the direct & pervasive control over the same. However, it is alleged by Opp. Party No. T that since the Government is not taking proper care of the building including the maternity centre a the major portion of the building has been damaged & the purpose of having the maternity centre has been frustrated by covering it to office, store etc. 3. The aforesaid claim of Opp. Party No. 1 was strongly refuted by the State Government & it has been alleged on behalf of the State Government that due to dispute between the Opp. Party No. 1 & the Opp. Party Nos. 2 to 4, disturbances were created in the construction work by the Opp. Party No. 1. Further, the Opp. Party No. 1 with the help of their men did not allow the Contractor i.e., Opp. Party Nos. Party No. 1 & the Opp. Party Nos. 2 to 4, disturbances were created in the construction work by the Opp. Party No. 1. Further, the Opp. Party No. 1 with the help of their men did not allow the Contractor i.e., Opp. Party Nos. 5 & 6 to construct the maternity centre as well as to repair the building. 4. While the matter stood thus & during pendency of the suit, the present Petitioners claiming themselves to be the social workers/activists/representative of the villagers filed a petition on 6.8.2011 under Order 1, Rule 10 C.P.C. praying therein to be added as Defendants in the suit. The Opp. Party No. 1 filed an objection dated 19.8.2011 to the aforesaid petition for impletion. 5. The Learned Court below vide Order Dated 15.10.2011 after careful scrutiny of the record & after hearing the parties rejected the prayer for impletion as made by the Petitioners. 6. It is trite law that a person is a necessary party if in his absence, no effective decree can be passed. He is a proper party if his presence is necessary for an effectual & complete adjudication. Order 1, Rule 10 C.P.C. is very categorical in the above regard. No doubt the principle underlying the provisions of Order 1, Rule 10 of the C.P.C. is to avoid multiplicity of suits & likelihood of conflict of decisions. 7. After giving my anxious hearing to the parties & also perusing the materials on record, I do not find any substance in the claim of the intervener Petitioners to be impleaded as Defendants in the suit. Therefore, none impletion in any way would hinder the Court in deciding the matter effectively. 8. Moreover, when the present Petitioners claim themselves as social activists as well as representative of the villagers at best, it can be said that they are only beneficiaries of the disputed maternity centre. Since, the issues involved in the suit relates to the claim of the Opp. Party No. 1 as a lessee over the suit land, the present Petitioners can possibly have no say in such a matter. On the contrary, if their prayer for impletion would be allowed that will unnecessarily prolong the litigation. The Petitioners have failed to establish if they have any direct interest in the suit property. Party No. 1 as a lessee over the suit land, the present Petitioners can possibly have no say in such a matter. On the contrary, if their prayer for impletion would be allowed that will unnecessarily prolong the litigation. The Petitioners have failed to establish if they have any direct interest in the suit property. The Learned Court below has rightly taken note of all the contentions raised by the parties before it & by virtue of a reasoned & speaking order has negatived the prayer of the Petitioners to be added as Defendants to the suit. In my considered opinion, such an order in the interest of justice calls for no interference. In the result, the Writ Petition being devoid of merit stands dismissed. No costs. Petition dismissed.