Court Can't Allow Intervenors Sans Reason, Plaintiff Can't Be Forced To Implead Party Against Whom No Relief Is Sought: Orissa High Court

The Orissa High Court has reiterated that plaintiff being the 'dominus litis' cannot be compelled to implead someone, against whom he seeks no relief, as a defendant in his suit. The Bench of Justice Sashikanta Mishra, however, clarified that if the plaintiff chooses not to add someone as defendant, he does so at his own risk. In the words of the Court –

“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.”

Succinctly put, the petitioner had purchased the suit property from the recorded owner in 2019 and entered into possession. The said property was originally an agricultural land but the same was converted to homestead land following due procedure of law, and the land was also mutated in her favour.

It is the case of the petitioner/plaintiff that the proforma opposite parties/defendants interrupted her possession twice in 2021. Though she tried to ventilate her grievances by seeking help of the police, but the same could not fructify. Thus, she instituted a suit before the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Baripada, primarily seeking a permanent injunction against the defendants.

When the matter stood thus, the present opposite parties filed an application under Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) seeking to be impleaded as defendants in the said suit. Despite of objection by the plaintiff/petitioner, the application was allowed by the trial Court. Hence, the said order was impugned before the High Court.

The moot question which arose before the Court was whether the plaintiff/petitioner can be compelled to implead the opposite parties as defendants, especially when she seeks no particular relief against them.

For answering the aforesaid question, Justice Mishra adverted to the joint written statement filed by the original defendants. They specifically pleaded that the suit land was of “jungle kisam” and communal in nature for which no private individual like the petitioner can get the same recorded in his/her favour through an ROR. They claimed to have communal interest over the disputed land, along with the villagers of the adjacent villages, which is being used as a public road, playground, grazing field etc.

Notably, the opposite parties also took the exact same plea in their application for impleadment under Order I Rule 10. Thus, the Court found no reason as to why the suit cannot be properly decided without their presence as defendants, particularly when the cause they seek to espouse is adequately put forth by the original defendants. Accordingly, it observed –

“Thus, there is no difference at all in the stand taken by the original defendants in their written statement and the plea of the third party-interveners as per their application for impletion... The third-party interveners have not put forth any other plea to demonstrate as to how their impletion is necessary for effectual and proper adjudication of the case. In other words, it has not been shown or demonstrated that the suit as framed cannot be effectively adjudicated in their absence.”

The Court placed reliance on Sudhamayee Pattnaik v. Bibhu Prasad Sahoo, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 773 wherein the Supreme Court held that unless the Court suo moto directs to implead any third party for proper adjudication of suit, nobody can be permitted to be impleaded as the defendants against the wish of the plaintiffs. However, not impleading any other person as the defendants against the wish of the plaintiffs shall be at the risk of the plaintiffs.

Following the above dictum, the Court allowed the petition by setting aside the impugned order of the trial Court which had allowed the opposite parties to be impleaded as defendants.

Case Title: Sabita Sahu v. Nishakar Singh & Ors.

Case No: CMP No. 979 of 2022

Date of Judgment: October 31, 2025

Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr. Anupam Dash, Advocate

Counsel for the Opposite Parties: Mr. P.K. Satapathy, Advocate

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 147

Click Here To Read/Download Order