BIDYADHAR PRADHAN vs STATE OF ODISHA

Court
Odisha High Court

CMP/437/2023
ODHC010286852023
2026:OHC:268
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CMP No. 437 of 2023
CNR No. - ODHC010286852023

An application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of
India


Bidyadhar Pradhan
….

Petitioner
(Plaintiff)
-versus-
1.State of Odisha
2.Tahasildar, Dhamnagar
3.Nirakar Dhal
4.Madhusmita Mohanty
5.Braja Kishore Mallick
6.Suryakanta Sahoo
7.Prashant Kumar Mishra






.
…






Opposite Parties
(Defendants)

Advocates appeared in this case through Hybrid Mode :


For Petitioner : Mr. Jyoti Patnaik, Advocate,
Ms.Padmini Behera, Advocate,
and Ms. Ipsita Behera, Advocate



For Opposite Parties : Mr. S. J. Mohanty, A.S.C.
(for O.P. Nos. 1 and 2)
Ms. Sabita behera along with
Mr. S.S.K. Nayak, Advocate
(for O.P. Nos. 3 to 7)

CMP No. 437 of 2023 Page 1 of 14

CORAM:
HON’BLE MISS JUSTICE SAVITRI RTHO




. ……………………………………………………………………
Date of Hearing: 18.08.2026, 31.08.2026 and 08.09.2026
Date of Judgment: 31.10.2026

………………………………………………………………………..
Savitri Ratho, J. This CMP has been filed by the plaintiff challenging the
order dated 10.02.2023 passed by the learned Civil Judge(Junior
Division), Dhamnagar in C.S. No. 20 of 2020 (Annexure-5) allowing
the petition moved by the Opposite Parties No. 3 to 7 under Order 1
Rule 10 of the CPC.
BRIEF FACTS
2.
The petitioner as plaintiff filed Civil Suit No. 20 of 2020 for a
decree of declaration of his title, confirmation of his possession in
respect of the suit land and for permanent injunction against the
Defendants No. 1 and 2 (present Opposite Parties No.1 and 2).
3. The case of the plaintiff was that Bhagirathi Pradhan, his father
and he were in possession over the suit land on the strength of
Chirasthyai Rayati Patta granted on 05.07.1945 in favour of his father
by the ex-intermediary. Continuous possession over the suit land
remained with the father of the plaintiff and thereafter with the plaintiff
till date, uninterruptedly. Since 75 years, they were possessing the land.
In pursuance of order passed on 09.10.2019 by the Defendnat/Opposite
CMP No. 437 of 2023 Page 2 of 14

Party No.2 in L.E case No.1614/19-20, the local R.I on 28.02.2020 and
29.02.2020 asked the plaintiff to vacate the suit land and remove the
structure existing over a small portion of the suit land which was his
dwelling house and threatened to forcibly evict him and demolish it.
Hence, he filed the suit.
4. Application under Order 39, Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 151
of the CPC filed by the plaintiff-petitioner was disposed ex-parte
against Opposite Party No.1 and 2 on 31.03.2021, directing both sides
to maintain status quo over the suit land.
5. Thereafter application under Order 1, Rule 10 of the CPC was
filed by Opposite Party Nos. 3 praying for their impletion in the suit as
defendants. They stated that Hal Plot No. 2061, measuring Ac. 0.62
decimals, under M.S. Khata No. 1252 of Mouza Jayanagar, is recorded
as Patita land under the Government Sarbasadharana Khata, with the
village road situated towards its western side and their respective
Sthitiban lands situated towards the eastern side. They had purchased
different portions of the adjoining Plot No. 2061,3820 and 3918,
measuring Ac. 0.80 decimals, through registered sale deeds and were in
possession thereof, having undertaken mutation and conversion of the
land to Gharabari and constructed their residential houses. The disputed
CMP No. 437 of 2023 Page 3 of 14

Plot No. 2061 provides their only access to the village road. The land
being government land and communal in nature was being used by both
Hindus and Muslims for access to their agricultural land situated near it
and to access the public road and the village road. Neither the plaintiff
or his father was ever in possession of the suit land. The petitioner had
illegally occupied Ac.0.01 decimals and 200 square links of the suit
plot for which Encroachment Case No. 1614/2019-2020 was initiated
against him by the Tahasildar, Dhamnagar and he has paid a penalty of
Rs. 800/- on 02.08.2019 vide Receipt Sl. No. 4898-791. The Applicants
contended that the disputed property is Government land and that any
decision in the suit in their absence would prejudice their right of
access and the interests of the general public and their impleadment
was necessary for effective adjudication, prevention of multiplicity of
proceedings and avoidance of irreparable loss, and that no prejudice
would be caused to the Plaintiff, as the trial has not yet commenced.
They also stated that the rayatti patta was a fabricated one.
6. An objection was filed by the plaintiff-Petitioner stating that the
application filed under Order 1 Rule 10 of the CPC was not
maintainable and was based on false, concocted and misleading
averments. The Applicants did not have any right of access through the
CMP No. 437 of 2023 Page 4 of 14

disputed Plot No. 2061, measuring Ac.0.62 decimals, appertaining to
Mouza Jayanagar, M.S. Khata No. 1252, recorded as Abada Jogya
Anabadi Government land. The Applicants’ claims of purchasing
adjoining plots, possessing valid mutation records and having no
alternative access road were false, and the khatians relied upon by them
were fabricated and had no legal validity. Hal Plot No.2061/3820,
measuring Ac.0.40 decimals, continued to be recorded under
Government K
hata No.1252, and the Revenue Inspector’s report also
supports its inclusion in the said Government khata. The Applicants
were attempting to grab Government land on the basis of invalid
revenue records and they were neither necessary nor proper parties to
the suit for which their application was liable to be dismissed.
IMPUGNED ORDER
7. The learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Dhamnagar found
that the suit had been filed with an application under Order 1 Rule 8
CPC with a prayer to make paper publication regarding the suit. It
found that the suit land appertained to M.S ROR khata no.1252, Abada
yogya Anabadi, Hal plot no.2061 of area A0.62 dec and in the said
Khatian, in the remark column, there was no note of possession with
regards to possession of plaintiff. Perusal of the ROR khatian
CMP No. 437 of 2023 Page 5 of 14

documents of the all the Petitioners, revealed that the third party
petitioners have got their house adjacent to the suit land they claimed
that they were using the suit land and it is a communal land used by the
public. Holding that the given circumstances, the third party petitioners
are found to be the necessary parties and their impleadment, will help
in proper adjudication of the issues and will avoid multiplicity of
proceedings and if they are impleaded in the suit, then it will enable the
Court to adjudicate the issues effectively and completely, keeping in
view the interest of justice and proper adjudication of the suit, allowed
the application and added the applicants as Defendants No. 3 to 7.
SUBMISSIONS
PETITIONER

8. Mr. Jyoti Patnaik, learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted
that the suit Plot No. 1497 in Sabik Khata No. 577 of mouza Jayanagar,
PS-Dhamnagar, Dist- Balasore now Bhadrak was Anabadi and the
aforesaid land was lying fallow and in order to develop the land for
cultivation purpose the ex-intermediary had granted permanent rayati
patta (chirasthayi rayati patta) in favour of Bhagirati Pradhan, the
deceased father of plaintiff on 05.07.1945 in respect of area A0.62dec
CMP No. 437 of 2023 Page 6 of 14

out of total area in Sabik plot No. 1497 accepting salami therefore.
C onsequent on availing “chirastayi rayati patta”, father of plaintiff
reclaimed the land under cultivating possession and enjoyed the land.
The ancestor of the Petitioner acquired occupancy right over the suit
land and paid the rent to the ex-intermediary continuously for more
than a decade. If the Defendants No. 3 to 7 are added as parties, then
the Petitioner will suffer a great loss and will be debarred to get proper
justice. The applicants were neither proper or necessary parties in the
suit and effective decree could be passed in their absence. He relied on
the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Sudhamayee Pattnaik
& others vs. Bibhu Prasad Sahoo & others : 2022 SCC Online SC
1234 in support of his submissions.

9. Ms. P. Behera and Ms. I. Behera, learned counsel appearing on
behalf of Mr. Jyoti Patnaik, learned counsel for the Petitioner had
submitted that the plaintiff is the dominus litis and no party can be
impleaded as a defendant against the wishes of the plaintiff. They
reiterated that the applicants are neither proper or necessary parties in
the suit and hence the impugned order directing for their impletion is
liable to be set aside.

CMP No. 437 of 2023 Page 7 of 14

OPPOSITE PARTIES NO. 3 TO 7

10. Mr. S.S.K. Nayak, learned counsel for the Defendants 3 to 7
submitted that the suit land is government land and is used by the
public of Dhamnagar NAC and the near-by cultivators of both
communities. The Stitiban Gharabari lands of the Defendants 3 to 7 are
situated behind the suit land and they have got their respective dwelling
houses over their plots. In the front of the suit land, the village Road is
situated. The Defendants 3 to 7 with their family members use the said
suit land as their only path way to their plot Nos.2061/3820/3918
respectively. The suit land does not belong to the Petitioner. Neither the
father of the petitioner nor the petitioner were possessing the suit land
peacefully but the petitioner was in illegal possession over a portion of
the suit land for which Encroachment case no.1614/2019-20 has been
initiated against him and he has paid the penalty before the
Tahasildar/Defendant No.2. Eviction notice has also been issued by the
Defendant No.2 against the petitioner in respect of the said encroached
portion of the suit land. He has relied on the decision of this Court in
the case of Banchhanidhi Patra & others vs. Bhagabat Prasad Panda
& others in CMP No. 1278 of 2016 in support of his submission that
the impugned order does not call for any interference.
CMP No. 437 of 2023 Page 8 of 14

STATE COUNSEL

11. Mr. S.J. Mohanty, learned Additional Standing counsel
submitted that the impugned order being a reasoned order, did not call
for interference in exercise of power under Article 227 of the
Constitution.
STATUTORY PROVISIONS
12. The provision of Order 1 Rule 10 (2) of the C.P.C. is extracted
below for easy reference:-
. Suit in name of wrong plaintiff
“10
(1) xxxx
(2)Court may strike out or add parties:-
The Court may at any stage of the proceedings, either
“
upon or without the application of either party, and on
such terms as may appear to the Court to be just, order
that the name of any party improperly joined, whether as
plaintiff or defendant, be struck out, and that the name, of
any person who ought to have been joined, whether as
plaintiff or defendant, or whose presence before the Court
may be necessary in order to enable the Court effectually
and completely to adjudicate upon and settle all the
questions involved in the suit, be added.”

CMP No. 437 of 2023 Page 9 of 14

JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS

13. In the case of Sudhamayee Pattnaik (supra), the Supreme Court
has held as follows;
“ 9. 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 the settled
position of law, the plaintiffs are the dominus 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 the defendants against the
wish of the plaintiffs. Not impleading any other person as
the 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. ”
11. However, at the same time, considering the fact that
“
defendants have also filed counterclaim for declaration of
their right, title and interest over the suit property and
permanent injunction and in case the counterclaim 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
CMP No. 437 of 2023 Page 10 of 14

counterclaim be passed in absence of the subsequent
purchasers. Therefore, non-impleading the subsequent
purchasers as defendants on the objection raised by the
plaintiffs shall be at the risk of the plaintiffs.
12. 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.
13. 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.
”
14. Banchhanidhi Patra
In the case of (supra), this Court has held
as follows;
“7. An identical question came up for consideration before
this Court in Indrajit Dandasena and others v. Mangal
Charan Dandasena and others , 57 (1984) CLT 31 . Learned
Single Judge, before whom the revision came up for hearing,
has observed that there are cleavage of decisions of this
Court on the point. The matter was referred to a larger
Bench. This Court went in-depth into the matter and held
that the maxim "dominus litis" means the plaintiff is the
master of suit. It was further that the rule of dominus litis is
subject to the powers of the Court under Order 1, Rule 10(2)
of the Code inasmuch as the said rule authorises the Court to
CMP No. 437 of 2023 Page 11 of 14

direct addition of further parties to the suit even suo motu
where it appears that such impletion is just and the party
who has not been joined in the litigation by the plaintiff is
either a necessary or a proper party. The exercise of
discretion by the Court in cases where it satisfies the
requirements of the rule would be made nugatory if the
controlling authority would be the plaintiff by application of
the rule of dominus litis. As a matter of fact, while
considering as to whether impletion of a party is necessary
to pass an effective and executable decree, or to enable the
Court effectually and completely to adjudicate upon and
settle all questions involved in the suit the Court is required
to go into the question as to whether the discretion is to be
exercised by it in the facts and circumstances of the case.
8. The plaintiffs have alleged in the plaint that the suit land
has been wrongly recorded in the name of the defendant in
Raghupati Settlement. The intervenors assert that the
disputed land is a public road. Admittedly, the suit schedule
land has been recorded as village road in the ROR. Every
public has a vital interest over the properties of the
Government. In the event the suit is decreed, the same would
affect the rights of the public. Their presence would enable
the court to effectually and completely adjudicate the lis.

Thus the intervenors are proper parties to the suit.”
(emphasis supplied)

CMP No. 437 of 2023 Page 12 of 14

ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION

15. In view of the provision of Order 10(2) of the CPC and the
decision referred to above, the following principles emerge:-
(i) The plaintiff being dominus litis has the liberty to choose against
whom he/she claim relief and non-joinder of a party would be at the
risk of the plaintiff and no party can compel the plaintiff to implead
any party in the suit.
(ii) The Court has the suo motu power or while considering an
application for impletion of parties, to direct for impletion, if it
considers that it is necessary in the facts and circumstances of the
case, for passing an effective and executable decree or to enable it
to adjudicate upon all the issues/questions involved in the suit.

16. Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusal of the
provisions of Order 10, Rule 2 of the CPC and the decisions referred to
above, I find that the impugned order passed by the learned trial Court
is a reasoned order, which is neither perverse nor bereft of jurisdiction.
17. I therefore do not consider it to be a fit case to exercise power
under Article 227 of the Constitution to interfere with the impugned
order.
CMP No. 437 of 2023 Page 13 of 14

18.
The CMP is therefore dismissed.

19. Interim order dated 21.06.2023 passed in I.A. No. 413 of 2023
stands vacated and I.A. No. 413 of 2023 stands disposed of.
20. Before parting with the case, I would like to place on record, a
note of appreciation for Ms. Padmini Behera and Miss Ipsita Behera,
learned counsel who are relatively new entrants to the Bar but who had
come prepared with the case on 08.09.2026 and ably supplemented the
submissions made earlier by Mr. Jyoti Pattanaik, learned counsel on the
petitioner. This sort of assistance is expected from young members of
the Bar, but is rarely extended.
21.
Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper
application.

22. Copy of this order be communicated to the learned Civil Judge
(Junior Division), Dhamnagar.


………………….
(Savitri Ratho)
Judge
Orissa High Court, Cuttack
st
Dated the 31 October 2026 /Subhalaxmi
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: SUBHALAXMI PRIYADARSHANI
SAHOO
Reason: Authentication
Location: Orissa High Court, Cuttack
Date: 03-Nov-2026 21:25:40
CMP No. 437 of 2023 Page 14 of 14