Page 1 of 6. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CMP No.1958 of 2025 Maa Dhaneswari Thakurani Bije Bhabanipur, Madhiali & Ors. ..... Petitioner Represented by Adv. – P.K. Mohanty, Sr. Adv. -versus- State Of Odisha & Ors. ..... Opposite Parties Represented by Adv. – S.K. Parhi, A.S.C. A.P. Bose (for O.P. Nos.4 & 7 to 11) CORAM: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA ORDER 21.07.2026 Order No. 02. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Mode. 2. Heard Sri P.K. Mohanty, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioners and Mr.A.P.Bose, learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff-Opposite Party Nos.4 & 7 to 11. Perused the CMP application as well as the prayer made therein. 3. The Petitioners, who are third party in CS No.222 of 2008 pending in the court of learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Pipili have approached this court by filing the present application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India thereby challenging the impugned order dated 18.10.2025 passed by the abovenoted court. The third party to the abovenoted suit filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10 (2) of the CPC to be impleaded as defendants to Page 2 of 6. the suit on the ground that they are necessary parties to the suit and the suit cannot be adjudicated in their absence. Such application having been rejected by virtue of the impugned order dated 18.10.2025, at Annexure-7 to the CMP application, they have come up before this court by filing the present application. 4. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioners, at the outset, contended that the Opposite Parties No.3 to 11, as plaintiffs, filed a suit for declaration and other ancillary reliefs. During the pendency of the aforesaid suit, the Petitioners, who were not initially arrayed as parties to the suit, moved an application under Order 1 Rule 10 (2) of the CPC to be impleaded as defendants to the suit. In their application under Order 1 Rule 10 (2) of the CPC, at Annexure-5, the Petitioners took a stand that they are necessary parties to the suit. The main plank of their argument for impleadment under Order 1 Rule 10(2) is that the road leading to the temple of the village deity is being forcefully occupied by the plaintiffs which is causing disturbance to the local devotees and villagers. He further contended that the aforesaid plot No.690 has been included in the suit schedule. He further contended that in the event the suit proceeds and the plaintiffs’ right, title and interest is declared over the plot No.690, people of the locality are likely to suffer irreparable loss and that their right over the road leading to the village deity’s temple is likely to be infringed. In the aforesaid factual backdrop, the Petitioners moved the application before the learned trial court to be impleaded as parties to the suit. 5. Such application of the Petitioners under Order 1 Rule 10 (2) was taken up for hearing by the learned trial court and the learned trial court has rejected the application vide order dated 18.10.2025, Page 3 of 6. at Annexure-7. While assailing the impugned order dated 18.10.2025, learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioners argues that the learned trial court, while considering the Petitioners’ application for impleadment, has failed to consider the interest of the Petitioners, which is likely to be affected in the event any decree is passed in the pending suit. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioners also highlighted the fact that this Court, vide order dated 14.5.2025 in W.P.(C) No.14750 of 2024, 14756 of 2024, and 147 of 2024, directed eviction of the plaintiffs from plot No.690 which has been included in the suit schedule properties. He further contended that the Tahasildar was given a specific direction to ensure eviction from plot No.690 as per law. While this was the position, the plaintiffs approached the learned trial court for declaration of right, title, and interest over 3 plots, bearing plot Nos.688, 689, 690. The third parties to the suit- Petitioners are interested in plot No.690 only, which is a road leading to the village deity’s temple and that the Revenue Authorities have recorded the same under the Rakhit Khata. 6. Learned trial court by virtue of the impugned order rejected the application of the Petitioners under Order 1 Rule 10 (2) of the CPC principally on the ground that the Petitioners do not possess any right over the land in question and that their claim is confined to being worshiper of the deity installed on plot No.690. Moreover, their right of worship is not dependent upon the outcome of this suit. In such manner, the learned trial court has come to a conclusion that the claim of the Petitioners to be added as parties is legally not sustainable and, as such, while holding that the Petitioners do not satisfy the criteria to be added as parties under Page 4 of 6. Order 1 Rule 10 (2) of the CPC, the application of the Petitioners to be impleaded as parties to the suit has been rejected. 7. In course of his argument, the learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioners drawing attention of the Court to the RoR at Annexure- 3, submitted before this Court that the plot No.690, which is a part of the suit schedule plot, has been recorded in the reserve khata of the government with a note in the remark column to the effect: “Shri Dhaneswari Thakurani, Bijesthali”. He also referred to the suit schedule to emphasize the fact that plot No.690 is a part of the suit schedule plot, and that the Petitioners have sought relief relating to the aforesaid plot No.690. He also referred to order dated 18.10.2025 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Pipili in CS No.224 of 2008. By virtue of the order dated 18.10.2025, at Annexure-9, an identical prayer to be impleaded as parties to the suit has been allowed by the learned trial court relating to the same deity. 8. Having regard to the submissions made by counsels appearing for the parties and on a careful examinations of the background facts, further on a close scrutiny of the documents annexed to the CMP Petition and on a careful reading of the impugned order dated 18.10.2025 at Annexure-7, this Court observed that the learned trial court has rejected the application of the Petitioners under Order 1 Rule 10 (2) of the CPC principally on the ground that the Petitioners have no right, title, or interest over the suit land and that the plot No.690, which has been recorded in the Rakhit khata, can very well be defended by the State-Opposite Parties to the suit. It has also been observed by the learned trial court that the right of worship of the Petitioners would not be Page 5 of 6. extinguished or impaired if any judgment and decree passed in the present suit. 9. In the present context, this Court would like to observe that so far the plot Nos.688 and 689 are concerned, the Petitioners have no say in the suit. Therefore, they may not be necessary parties with regard to the aforesaid two plots. So far plot No.690 is concerned, it appears that the same is a disputed plot which has been recorded in the Rakhit khata. The RoR filed by the Petitioners in support of their contention, at Annexure-3, indicates that the temple of the village deity has been installed on the said plot and that the part of the plot No.690 is a road leading to the temple of the village deity. In view of the aforesaid factual position, it cannot be said that the Petitioners have no prima facie case and that they are not going to be affected in the event any adjudication is made over plot No.690. Moreover, in an earlier writ petition, this Court has already directed the Tahasildar to take steps for eviction of the plaintiffs from the plot No.690. Therefore, this Court is prima facie satisfied that the Petitioners are necessary parties so far plot No.690 is concerned. 10. In such view of the matter, this Court is of the considered opinion that the impugned order dated 18.10.2025 passed by the learned trial court to the extent the same relates to plot No.690 is unsustainable in law. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 18.10.2025, at Annexure-7, is hereby set aside. The application of the Petitioners to be impleaded as parties to the suit is hereby allowed. Let both sides appear before the learned trial court within two weeks along with a certified copy of today’s order. Counsel for the plaintiffs undertakes to file the consolidated cause title immediately on their appearance. Thereafter, the suit shall proceed Page 6 of 6. by following the procedure as laid down in the Code of Civil Procedure and that the learned trial court shall provide an opportunity to the newly added parties to the suit, i.e., the Petitioners to file their written statement within a short time which the Senior Counsel for the Petitioners undertake to comply with without delaying the matter further. Furthermore, since this Court has already given a direction to conclude the suit within a stipulated period of time in CMP No.1211 of 2025, no further direction is necessary for early disposal of the suit. 11. Accordingly, the CMP stands allowed. ( A.K. Mohapatra ) Judge Anil Designation: Junior Stenographer