Sudhamayee Pattnaik and Others Versus Bibhu Prasad Sahoo and Others

Sudhamayee Pattnaik and Others Versus Bibhu Prasad Sahoo and Others

Landmark Cases of India / सुप्रीम कोर्ट के ऐतिहासिक फैसले



NON-REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6370 OF 2022
Sudhamayee Pattnaik and Others …Appellants
Versus
Bibhu Prasad Sahoo and Others …Respondents
J U D G M E N T
M.R. SHAH, J.
1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment
and order dated 28.03.2022 passed by the High Court of Orissa at
Cuttack in CMP No. 258/2019, by which the High Court has dismissed
the said writ petition preferred by the appellants herein – original
plaintiffs and has confirmed the order passed by the trial Court allowing
application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC preferred by original defendant
Nos. 1 to 4 and thereby directing to implead the subsequent purchasers
1
as defendants in the suit instituted by the original plaintiffs, the original
plaintiffs have preferred the present appeal.
2. The facts leading to the present appeal in a nutshell are as under:
That the appellants – original plaintiffs instituted Civil Suit No.
298/2011 against the original defendants for declaration, permanent
injunction and recovery of possession. In the said suit, original
defendants appeared and filed their joint written statement along with
counter-claim for declaration of their right, title and interest over the suit
property and for permanent injunction. After the evidence from the side
of the plaintiffs was closed, original defendant Nos. 1 to 4 filed an
application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC and prayed for impleadment of
subsequent purchasers as party defendants alleging inter alia that during
the pendency of the suit, the plaintiffs have illegally and unlawfully
alienated some parcels of the disputed land in favour of one Manasi
Sahoo wife of Sanjaya Kumar Sahoo, Bharat Chandra Sahoo,
Dhaneswar Sahoo and Kedarnath Sahoo. Therefore, it was prayed to
implead the subsequent purchasers as party defendants for proper
adjudication of the suit and to avoid multiplicity of proceedings.
2.1 The said application was opposed by the plaintiffs – appellants
herein on the ground that defendant Nos. 1 to 4 have no locus standi to
file such an application. It was also the case on behalf of the original
2
plaintiffs that the plaintiffs are the dominus litis and nobody can be
permitted to join/implead as defendants against the wish of the plaintiffs.
2.2 By order dated 20.02.2019, learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division),
Khorda allowed the said application and directed to implead the
subsequent purchasers as defendants by observing that the subsequent
purchasers are the lis pendens purchasers and the lis pendens
purchasers may be added as proper parties to prevent multiplicity of
litigation.
2.3 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order passed by the
trial Court allowing application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC, which was
filed at the instance of original defendant Nos. 1 to 4, the plaintiffs
preferred writ petition before the High Court. By the impugned judgment
and order, the High Court has dismissed the said writ petition. Hence,
this appeal.
3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants – original
plaintiffs has vehemently submitted that in the facts and circumstances
of the case, both, the trial Court as well as the High Court have
committed a grave error in allowing the application under Order 1 Rule
10 CPC, which was at the instance of the defendants.
3
3.1 It is then submitted that the plaintiffs are the dominus litis and
nobody can be permitted to be impleaded as defendants against the
wish of the plaintiffs.
3.2 It is further submitted that the decision of this Court in the case of
Rahul S. Shah v. Jinendra Kumar Gandhi, reported in (2021) 6 SCC
418, which has been relied upon and followed by the High Court, shall
not be applicable to the facts of the case on hand.
4. On the other hand, it is the case on behalf of defendant Nos. 1 to 4
that as the part of the suit property was transferred illegally in favour of
the subsequent purchasers during the pendency of the suit, to avoid any
multiplicity of proceedings and to pass an effective decree, the trial Court
rightly allowed the application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC and directed
to implead the subsequent purchasers as defendants. It is therefore
submitted that the High Court has not committed any error in dismissing
the writ petition.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the respective parties at
length.
At the outset, it is required to be noted that the defendants in the
suit filed application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC and prayed to implead
the subsequent purchasers as party defendants. The suit is for
declaration, permanent injunction and recovery of possession. As per
4
the settled position of law, the plaintiffs are the domius litis. Unless the
court suo motu directs to join any other person not party to the suit for
effective decree and/or for proper adjudication as per Order 1 Rule 10
CPC, nobody can be permitted to be impleaded as defendants against
the wish of the plaintiffs. Not impleading any other person as defendants
against the wish of the plaintiffs shall be at the risk of the plaintiffs.
Therefore, subsequent purchasers could not have been impleaded as
party defendants in the application submitted by the original defendants,
that too against the wish of the plaintiffs.
 6. Now so far as the reliance placed upon the decision of this Court in
the case of Rahul S. Shah (supra) by the High Court is concerned, on
facts, the said decision shall not be applicable to the facts of the case on
hand. The said decision was not a case of an application under Order 1
Rule 10 CPC to implead the persons not party to the suit as defendants
and that too at the instance of the defendants.
7. However, at the same time, considering the fact that defendants
have also filed counter-claim for declaration of their right, title and
interest over the suit property and permanent injunction and in case the
counter-claim is allowed, as the plaintiffs are opposing to implead the
subsequent purchasers as party defendants, thereafter it will not be
open for the plaintiffs to contend that no decree in the counter-claim be
5
passed in absence of the subsequent purchasers. Therefore, nonimpleading the subsequent purchasers as defendants on the objection
raised by the plaintiffs shall be at the risk of the plaintiffs.
8. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above and with the
aforesaid observations, the present appeal is allowed. The impugned
judgment and order passed by the High Court and that of the trial Court
allowing application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC are hereby quashed
and set aside, however, with the observations as above.
The instant appeal is allowed in the aforesaid terms. In the facts
and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.
………………………………J.
[M.R. SHAH]
NEW DELHI; ……………………………….J.
SEPTEMBER 16, 2022. [KRISHNA MURARI]
6

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

100 Questions on Indian Constitution for UPSC 2020 Pre Exam

संविधान की प्रमुख विशेषताओं का उल्लेख | Characteristics of the Constitution of India

भारतीय संविधान से संबंधित 100 महत्वपूर्ण प्रश्न उतर