Orissa HC Upholds Order Adding Neighbours Who Claim Disputed Government Plot Is Their Only Access To Man’s Title Suit

The plaintiff filed a suit seeking declaration of title, confirmation of possession and permanent injunction concerning land he claimed under a 1945 rayati patta granted to his father.

The suit was brought against the State and the Tahasildar, following eviction action concerning an alleged encroachment

Opposite Parties 3–7 applied under Order I Rule 10 CPC to be added as defendants, asserting that the land was Government land used as a public access way to their adjoining properties and that the plaintiff had encroached on it

The plaintiff objected.

The trial court allowed impleadment, finding the applicants’ adjoining houses and claimed use of the land relevant to effective adjudication.

The plaintiff challenged that order under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution

Order I Rule 10(2) CPC empowers the court, at any stage, to add a person who ought to have been joined or whose presence is necessary to enable the court to effectually and completely adjudicate and settle the questions involved in the suit.

Although a plaintiff is ordinarily dominus litis and may choose the parties against whom relief is claimed, that principle does not displace the court’s power to order impleadment, including suo motu, where the statutory test is met; non-impleadment remains at the plaintiff’s risk.

The Court considered Sudhamayee Pattnaik v. Bibhu Prasad Sahoo, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1234, on dominus litis and the consequences of non-joinder, and Banchhanidhi Patra v. Bhagabat Prasad Panda, CMP No. 1278 of 2016, on impleadment where the dispute may affect public rights.

Under Article 227, interference was not warranted with a reasoned order that was neither perverse nor without jurisdiction.

The applicants claimed that the disputed Government land served as their only access to the village road and that the suit’s outcome could affect their access rights and public use of the land.

The trial court had considered the land records and the applicants’ adjoining houses and concluded that their presence would assist complete adjudication and avoid further proceedings.

The High Court held that the plaintiff’s dominus litis argument did not eliminate the trial court’s discretion under Order I Rule 10(2) CPC.

Finding the impleadment order reasoned and not perverse or jurisdictionally defective, it declined to interfere under Article 227.

It vacated the interim order dated 21 June 2023 and disposed of the associated I.A. No. 413 of 2023.