Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 160 (ORI)

Lalita Dashi v. Achyutanada Das

2013-05-31

B.K.MISRA

body2013
JUDGMENT B.K. Misra, J. 1. In this Writ Petition, the Petitioner challenges the correctness of the order of the Learned District Judge, Puri passed in Civil Suit No. 6380 of the 2009-2008 dated 14.12.2010 under Annexure-3, where in the Learned District Judge, Puri has allowed the prayer of one Achyutananda Das, namely, the present Opp. Party No. 1 to be impleaded as a Defendant in the suit. I have heard Mr. Mishra, Learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner as well as Mr. Bose, Learned Counsel appearing for the Opp. Party No. 1 & also perused the impugned order at Annexure-3 along with the materials on record including the petition filed by Opp. Party No. 1 in the Court below under Order-1, Rule- 10 of the C.P.C. praying therein to implead him as a Defendant in the suit. 2. The dispute in the Court below is with regard to the genuineness of the 'will' alleged to have been executed by Guru Adhikari Sri Krushnananda Das. The intervener Petitioner claims to be a disciple of late Guru Adhikari Sri Krushnananda Das & the said 'Guru' being satisfied with his conduct & service executed a 'Will' in his favour on 05.03.1999. It is also the case of the intervener Petitioner that in the guise of executing a Power of Attorney, some of the devotees including the present Writ Petitioner-Lalita Dashi got a cancellation deed in respect of the 'will' executed by Guru Adhikari Sri Krushnananda Das. It is the case of the Writ Petitioner that on 17.9.2001 on a "Biswakarma Puja" day late Guru Adhikari Shri Krushnananda Das executed a fresh deed of will in her favour in presence of the witnesses & the said will is the last will & after the death of the Guru she approached the Court for grant of Letters of Administration in her favour. 3. 3. On careful consideration of the case of the rival parties in my humble view, to set at rest the controversies involved in the suit with regard to the wills in question, the impletion of the intervener Petitioner is absolutely necessary as he is a necessary party since prima facie he appears to have direct interest in the subject matter of litigation, it is needless to reiterate the settled position of law that "Direct Interest" means direct in the issues between the Plaintiff & the Defendant, A person is legally interested in the question involved in the suit only if he can show that it may lead to a result that may affect him legally, that is curtailing his legal rights. Thus considering the nature of dispute with regard to the wills in question the Learned District Judge, Puri has rightly allowed the prayer of the Opp. Party No. 1 to implead him as a Defendant in the Probate Proceeding, namely, C.S. No. 6380 of 2009-2008. I do not find any illegality in the said order at Annexure 3. Thus, when there is nothing to interfere with the impugned order at Annexure-3, the order in question calls for no interference. Accordingly, the Writ Petition being devoid of merit stands dismissed. No costs. Petition dismissed.