IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CMP No. 374 of 2025 Arun Kumar Swain @ Arun Swain & Others …. Petitioners Mr. S.K.Joshi, Advocate -Versus- Amiya Chandra Patra …. Opposite Parties CORAM: MR. JUSTICE R.K. PATTANAIK Order No. ORDER 16.05.2025 01. 1. Heard Mr. Joshi, learned counsel for the petitioners. 2. No notices are issued to the opposite parties as the matter is disposed of at the stage of admission. 3. Instant petition is filed by the petitioners assailing the impugned order dated 22nd November, 2024 in C.S. No. 93 of 2006 by learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Patnagarh. 4. Mr. Joshi, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that an application under Order 1 Rule 10(2) CPC was filed seeking impletion of one Krishna Swain being the grandson of late Keshab Swain and son of defendant No.1-C, namely, Tarun Kumar Swain for the reasons stated, however, it has not been found favour with the learned court below and was followed by the order of rejection dated 22nd November, 2024. 5. A copy of the plaint is at Annexure-1 and the same is perused. On a reading of the plaint, it is found that the suit is for declaration of right, title, interest and permanent injunction against the defendants. The father of the petitioner, as earlier stated, is one of the defendants. The submission is that the predecessor-in-interest alleged to have sold the suit schedule property in favour of the plaintiffs which is not the case. In so far as the impletion of the petitioner is concerned, learned court below declined the same on the ground that each and every member of different branches of late Keshab Swain cannot be impleaded. The Court considering the reason assigned by learned court below does not find the same to be erroneous. Since, the interest of said Krishna Swain is to be looked after by defendant No.1-C, namely, father, the learned court below did not err in not allowing the impletion and rightly rejected the application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC. In other words, the Court is of the view that the impugned order at Annexure-4 does not suffer from any legal infirmity, hence, not be disturbed. 6. Accordingly, it is ordered. 7. In the result, CMP stands dismissed. 8. Urgent certified copy of this order be issued as per rules. Kabita (R.K. Pattanaik) Judge