JUDGMENT : Dr. B.R. Sarangi, J - Assailing the order dated 28.2.2013 rejecting the application filed under Order 1, Rule 10, CPC in Annexure-5 by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Jagatsinghpur in C.S. No. 219 of 2011 vide Annexure-7, the petitioner has approached this Court in the present writ petition. 2. The short fact of the case, in hand, is that the plaintiff-opposite party No. 1 filed a suit for eviction against defendant-opposite party No. 2 directing him to vacate the suit house standing over Hal Plot No. 158/469 under Khata No. 143 of mouza-Jayabada and for realization of a sum of Rs. 24,000/- from him with interest along with other ancillary reliefs. The present petitioner filed another suit bearing Civil Suit No. 255 of 2010 against the plaintiff-opposite party No. 1 for declaration of right, title, interest and possession over the suit Plot No. 158/469 under Khata No. 143. Both the suits are pending before the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Jagatsinghpur for adjudication. The petitioner and the husband of the plaintiff-opposite party No. 1 are related as sister and brother and the petitioner purchased the suit land, but erroneously the same was recorded in the name of the present plaintiff-opposite party No. 1 for which Civil Suit No. 255 of 2010 has been filed by the petitioner seeking for declaration of right, title and interest over the suit land. In the said suit, it is stated that out of her own funds, she constructed a house on the suit plot and was staying there. But due to transfer of her husband, she let out the suit house to one Jyostnarani Nayak, W/o. Bibekananda Nayak on rent pursuant to the agreement executed on 1.7.2007. The plaintiff-opposite party No. 1 as such has no locus standi to file the suit for eviction against the defendant-opposite party No. 2, who is a tenant under the present petitioner and is residing in the house by executing an agreement and also paying rent. Therefore, the petitioner states that she being a necessary party to the suit filed by plaintiff-opposite party No. 1 bearing Civil Suit No. 255 of 2010, she should be impleaded as a party in the said suit. 3. Therefore, the petitioner states that she being a necessary party to the suit filed by plaintiff-opposite party No. 1 bearing Civil Suit No. 255 of 2010, she should be impleaded as a party in the said suit. 3. The plaintiff-opposite party No. 1 filed objection to the said application filed by the petitioner and stated that the petition so filed is not maintainable in the eye of law and as such, the contentions raised in the applications are wrong, baseless and concocted. The petitioner in connivance with the defendant-opposite party No. 2 has filed the said petition in order to drag the litigation. The plaintiff-opposite party No. 1 disputes the construction of the suit house over the suit land and also disputes the letting out of the premises to the wife of defendant-opposite party No. 2 and urged that the husband of the petitioner is a man of fraud and taking advantage of the relationship between the plaintiff-opposite party No. 1 and his wife, she wants to grab the suit land. She also stated that the defendant-opposite party No. 2 being a lawyer is playing mischief with the plaintiff-opposite party No. 1 and illegally supporting the present petitioner, who is the plaintiff in Civil Suit No. 255 of 2010 and it is stated that the agreement, which was executed on 1.7.2007 is manufactured and prepared only for the purpose of filing of the suit and as such, the petitioner is in no way connected with the suit land and her presence is not required for just decision of the suit as she is a stranger to the suit property. Accordingly, she seeks for rejection of the application. 4. On consideration of such pleadings, the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Jagatsinghpur by order dated 28.2.2013 rejected the application filed by the petitioner seeking to implead her as a party in C.S. No. 219 of 2011, which was filed for eviction against the defendant-opposite party No. 2 by the plaintiff-opposite party No. 1 and stated that due to non-production of single scrap of paper to show that she has got interest in the suit property or she has purchased the suit plot No. 158/469 under Khata No. 143. Therefore, it can never be said that the petitioner is a necessary party in the suit and in her absence, no effective decree can be passed in the suit. Therefore, it can never be said that the petitioner is a necessary party in the suit and in her absence, no effective decree can be passed in the suit. Accordingly, the learned trial Court rejected the said application. 5. Mr. Maheswar Mohanty, learned counsel for the petitioner states that the reason for rejection of the application seeking for impletion of party in C.S. No. 219 of 2011 is non-production of any document by the present petitioner before the Court below for just and proper adjudication of the case and to substantiate her claim that she is a necessary party to the proceeding itself. He submits that the petitioner has produced the documents before this Court, which has been placed on record at Flag 'B' and therefore, he seeks for adjudication of the case or in the alternative seeks to grant relief to the petitioner to file a fresh application along with the documents, which were placed before the Court in Flag 'B' so that the Court below can adjudicate the matter afresh under Order 1, Rule 10, CPC for establishing the claim of the petitioner that she being a necessary party to the proceeding, in her absence the suit cannot be proceeded with. That apart, the petitioner has already filed a suit for declaration of her right, title and interest bearing Civil Suit No. 255 of 2010 before the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Jagatsinghpur, which is pending for adjudication against the plaintiff-opposite party No. 1. It is further stated that law demands that both the C.S. No. 219 of 2011 filed by the plaintiff-opposite party No. 1 against the defendant-opposite party No. 2 for eviction and Civil Suit No. 255 of 2010 filed by the present petitioner against the plaintiff-opposite party No. 1 for right, title and interest and possession should be heard together so that the lis between the parties can be resolved and multiplicity of litigation between the parties can be avoided. Therefore, in the interest of justice, equity and fair play, liberty should be given to the petitioner to file a fresh application along with the documents before the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Jagatsinghpur in C.S. No. 219 of 2011 to reconsider the matter whether the petitioner is a necessary party to the proceeding or not. 6. Mrs. Therefore, in the interest of justice, equity and fair play, liberty should be given to the petitioner to file a fresh application along with the documents before the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Jagatsinghpur in C.S. No. 219 of 2011 to reconsider the matter whether the petitioner is a necessary party to the proceeding or not. 6. Mrs. Sujata Jena, learned counsel for the plaintiff-opposite party No. 1 urged that in the suit for eviction, it is matter between the plaintiff and the defendant against whom the plaintiff seeks for eviction and therefore, the petitioner has no locus standi to seek for impletion as a party to the proceeding. According to her, since the petitioner is an outsider, she is not a necessary party to the proceeding and therefore, her application has been rightly rejected by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Jagatsinghpur by the impugned order. To substantiate her contention, she has relied upon Panjum Bibi ' Ramjan Bibi and Others Vs. Najma Alim and Another, (2008) 106 CLT 731 : (2008) 2 OLR 747 . 7. As it appears from the pleadings available on record as mentioned above, admittedly, the petitioner has filed Civil Suit No. 255 of 2010 for declaration of right, title, interest and possession over the suit land bearing plot No. 158/469 under Khata No. 143 of mouza Jayabada, which is pending for adjudication. But the plaintiff-opposite party No. 1 has filed the suit bearing C.S. No. 219 of 2011 for eviction against the defendant-opposite party No. 2 and both the suits are pending before the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Jagatsinghpur for adjudication. The petitioner claims that she had purchased the property in question from the husband of the plaintiff-opposite party No. 1 and the relationship between the husband of the plaintiff-opposite party No. 1 and herself is brother and sister. Though, she purchased the suit land, the same has been erroneously recorded in the name of plaintiff-opposite party No. 1 and taking advantage of such recording, she filed the suit for eviction against the defendant-opposite party No. 2, who has been inducted as a tenant by the plaintiff in the very same suit property by execution of agreement on 1.7.2007. Though, she purchased the suit land, the same has been erroneously recorded in the name of plaintiff-opposite party No. 1 and taking advantage of such recording, she filed the suit for eviction against the defendant-opposite party No. 2, who has been inducted as a tenant by the plaintiff in the very same suit property by execution of agreement on 1.7.2007. The application filed by the petitioner to implead her as a party in C.S. No. 219 of 2011 filed by the plaintiff-opposite party No. 1 for eviction against defendant No. 2, has been rejected on the ground that she failed to produce any single scrap of paper to show that she has got interest in the suit property or she has purchased the suit plot No. 158/469 under Khata No. 143. The learned Court below further held that in absence of any document, it can never be said that the petitioner is a necessary party to the suit. In the present writ petition, the petitioner filed the Hatpatta executed in favour of the petitioner dated 21.7.1972, holding tax payment receipts, paper showing sabik and hal holding numbers, electricity bill, deed of agreement dated 1.1.1999 and deed of house rent agreement dated 1.7.1007 and 27.8.2012 between the petitioner and wife of the opposite party No. 2 placed at Flag 'B' and on that basis, she claims that she being a necessary party to the proceeding, liberty should be given to her to file a fresh application incorporating such documents for just adjudication of the case. 8. The reliance placed by the opposite party No. 1 on Panjum Bibi, wherein the scope of impletion of party in the suit for eviction was under consideration, the Division Bench of this Court has held that impletion of parties would change the nature and character of the suit and if the suit for eviction is converted to a suit for title, it is not permissible and generally a party cannot be impleaded against the wishes of the plaintiff. The proposition so laid down by this Court is not in dispute, but the only ground for rejection of the application filed under Order 1, Rule 10, CPC so far as the petitioner is concerned by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Jagatsinghpur is that no document has been produced before the said Court for just and proper adjudication of the case. Bunch of documents has been filed before this Court by the petitioner, which are placed at Flag 'B' of the brief, which has been executed in favour of the petitioner. Had these documents been produced before the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Jagatsinghpur, he would have considered the case in proper prospective. 9. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the law laid down by this Court, without expressing any opinion with regard to the merits of the case and locus standi of the petitioner, this Court disposes of the writ petition permitting the petitioner to file a fresh application along with the documents as at Flag 'B' of the brief before the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Jagatsinghpur to establish her locus, which shall be re-adjudicated by the learned Court below in accordance with law. In the fitness of things, this Court directs that the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Jagatsinghpur shall do well to consider such application as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of four months by affording opportunity of hearing to all the parties. All the parties are directed to co-operate in the early disposal of the application to be filed by the petitioner under Order 1, Rule 10, CPC in order to avoid further delay in disposal of the case. No cost. Final Result : Disposed off