Order I Rule 10 CPC | Plaintiff Being Dominus Litis Cannot Be Forced To Implead Parties Against Whom No Relief Is Sought: Orissa High Court
Stating that the plaintiff, as dominus litis, cannot be compelled to add defendants against whom no relief is claimed, the Orissa High Court set aside a trial court order that had impleaded third-party villagers in a land dispute suit on the ground of avoiding future litigation.
The Orissa High Court has held that in civil litigation, a plaintiff cannot be forced to implead third parties if no relief is sought against them, and any such non-joinder would remain at the plaintiff’s own risk.
The High Court further clarified that avoiding hypothetical future disputes is not a valid ground for impleadment under Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
The Court was hearing a petition under Article 227 filed by the plaintiff challenging an order of the Senior Civil Judge, which had allowed a group of villagers to be added as defendants in a suit for permanent injunction and compensation concerning a parcel of land allegedly converted and mutated in the plaintiff’s name.
A Bench comprising Justice Sashikanta Mishra, while adjudicating the matter, observed that “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.”
Advocate Anupam Dash represented the petitioner, while Advocate P.K. Satapathy appeared on behalf of the respondents.
Background
The plaintiff had filed a civil suit seeking a decree of permanent injunction restraining certain defendants from interfering with the suit land, along with a compensation claim. She asserted the purchase of the land from the recorded owner by a registered sale deed, conversion of its classification from agricultural to homestead, and mutation in her name.
Some villagers were already defendants in the suit and filed a written statement claiming the land was communal in character, used as a public utility land, such as a grazing field, road and playground.
Subsequently, additional villagers applied to Order I Rule 10 CPC seeking to intervene and be added as parties on the same grounds as those raised by the existing defendants. The trial court allowed this request, stating it would avoid multiplicity of proceedings.
Aggrieved, the plaintiff approached the High Court challenging the impleadment.
Court’s Observation
The Orissa High Court examined the pleadings and noted that the original defendants had already asserted the same communal-land argument relied upon by the proposed interveners. Their application under Order I Rule 10, the Court noted, was a verbatim repetition of the written statement already on record, with no independent plea demonstrating why their presence was necessary.
The Court reiterated that impleadment is permissible only when a person’s presence is necessary for effective adjudication of the dispute, and not merely because they claim an interest similar to that of existing defendants.
The Court relied on the Supreme Court decision in Sudhamayee Pattnaik v. Bibhu Prasad Sahoo, wherein it was held that plaintiffs are dominus litis and cannot be compelled to add defendants against their wishes unless the court itself finds their presence indispensable.
The Court also referred to its coordinate Bench decision in Kamal Kumar Bhawasinka v. SMV Beverages (P) Ltd., which held that a plaintiff chooses the adversary and non-joinder remains a risk for the plaintiff alone. Similarly, in Md. Allauddin v. Collector, it was reiterated that a plaintiff cannot be compelled to contest against additional parties merely on apprehensions of collusion or communal interest.
Contrastingly, the judgment cited by the interveners, Rahul S. Shah v. Jinendra Kumar Gandhi, was held inapplicable as it related to impleadment at the execution stage based on reports of a commissioner and considerations of actual possession.
The High Court found that the trial court had failed to record any valid reason for the impleadment and merely stated that it would prevent multiplicity of suits, without explaining how such multiplicity would arise.
Accordingly, the High Court held that no effective adjudication of the suit was dependent on the impleadment of additional villagers, and forcing their addition violated the principle that the plaintiff governs the choice of defendants.
Conclusion
The Court set aside the order of impleadment, allowed the petition, and dismissed the application of the third-party interveners.
Cause Title: Sabita Sahu v. Nishakar Singh & Others
Appearances:
Petitioner: Anupam Dash, Advocate
Respondents: P.K. Satapathy, Advocate