Orissa High Court Quashes Impleadment Order in Land Dispute; Plaintiff Cannot Be Forced to Add Parties Without Relief Sought under Order I Rule 10 CPC
Safiya Malik
The High Court of Orissa, Single Bench of Justice Sashikanta Mishra held that a plaintiff, being the dominus litis, cannot be compelled to include as defendant any person against whom no relief is sought. The Court clarified that such choice rests with the plaintiff, though it is exercised at his own risk. In doing so, the Bench set aside an order of the Senior Civil Judge, Baripada, which had allowed the addition of five villagers as defendants in a civil suit concerning land claimed to be communal property. Observing that the proposed parties had no independent interest beyond that already represented by existing defendants, the Court found the trial court’s reasoning—based merely on preventing future litigation—legally untenable and dismissed the impleadment application under Order I Rule 10 of the Civil Procedure Code.
The case arose from a civil dispute concerning ownership and possession of a parcel of land initially recorded as agricultural and later converted to homestead use. The petitioner, who had purchased the land from its recorded owner through a registered sale deed, claimed to have taken possession and completed the process of conversion and mutation in her name. She alleged that certain individuals interfered with her possession by removing boundary pillars and obstructing construction of a boundary wall. After receiving no action from the local police, she instituted a civil suit seeking permanent injunction and compensation.
The defendants in the suit contended that the land was recorded as “jungle kisam” under the communal category and therefore could not be privately owned or transferred. They asserted that villagers from nearby areas had a collective and long-standing interest in the land, using it as a public road, grazing ground, playground, and for community events. They maintained that the plaintiff’s claim was invalid and the land remained communal property.
During the pendency of the suit, five additional villagers filed an application under Order I Rule 10 of the Civil Procedure Code, seeking to be impleaded as defendants on the ground that they too had communal rights over the property. The plaintiff objected, arguing that the existing defendants were already representing the same interest and that no new issues would arise from their inclusion. The trial court allowed the application to add them as parties, prompting the present challenge under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
The Court recorded that Order I Rule 10 CPC permits impleadment only where “the said party’s presence would be necessary in order to enable the Court effectually and completely to adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the suit.” It observed that this was the test to be applied.
The Court noted that although the land was claimed to be communal, the plaintiff asserted valid purchase and mutation. It examined the written statement of the original defendants and observed that Paragraphs 11 and 12 stated: “the suit land as per C.S. R.O.R. was kisam Jungle which is communal in nature… all the villagers… had have their communal interest in each and every inch of the above land… possessing the above land as their Jungle, public road, playground… grazing field… Puja Mandap… meeting place etc peacefully from the time of provincial settlement…”
The Court then compared this with the application of the third-party interveners and recorded that they stated: “the suit land… was/is absolute communal in nature for which we the 3rd party petitioners… had/have communal interest… possessing the above land as their public road, playground… grazing field… Puja Mandap… meeting place etc peacefully from the time of provisional settlement…”
The Court observed that “there is no difference at all in the stand taken by the original defendants… and the plea of the third party-interveners.” It stated that the interveners had not shown how their presence was necessary for complete adjudication.
Citing precedent, the Court quoted the Supreme Court in Sudhamayee Pattnaik: “the plaintiffs are the dominus litis… nobody can be permitted to be impleaded as defendants against the wish of the plaintiffs… Not impleading any other person… shall be at the risk of the plaintiffs.”
It also referred to a coordinate bench decision holding: “the Plaintiff being dominus litis has the liberty to choose the party against whom it would claim relief… it cannot be compelled to implead parties unless the Court suo motu directs…”
The Court further recorded the view in Md. Allauddin: “the plaintiff is the sole architect of the plaint… he has a right to choose his own adversary… whatever may be the judgment… it cannot bind him, as he was not a party in the suit.”
The Court held: “Court below has not cited any reason justifying impletion of the third party-interveners. It has only been stated that the same would avoid multiplicity of suits but exactly how, has not been spelt out at all. As already started (sic), the plaintiff being dominus litis cannot be forced to implead someone against whom he does not specifically seek any relief. It goes without saying that if he has chosen not to, he does so at his own risk.”
The Court stated that “the impugned order cannot be sustained in the eye of law and warrants interference. TheC.M.P. is allowed. The impugned order is set aside. The application filed by Opp. Party Nos.1 to 5 under Order I Rule 10 of C.P.C. is hereby dismissed.”
Advocates Representing The Parties
For the Petitioner: Mr. Anupam Dash, Advocate
For the Opposite Parties: Mr. P.K. Satapathy, Advocate
Case Title: Sabita Sahu v. Nishakar Singh and Others
Case Number: C.M.P. No. 979 of 2022
Bench: Justice Sashikanta Mishra
