p. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CMP No.935 of 2024 Shree Mukteswar Mahadev, Jajpur & another …. Petitioners Mr. S.P. Sarangi, Advocate -Versus- State of Odisha & others …. Opposite Parties Mr. U.R. Jena, AGA CORAM: MR. JUSTICE R.K. PATTANAIK Order No. ORDER 21.03.2025 03. 1. Heard Mr. Sarangi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Jena, learned AGA for the State. 2. No notice is issued to opposite party No.3 as the matter is disposed of at the stage of admission. 3. Notices are also dispensed with vis-à-vis opposite party Nos. 4 to 18, since no relief is claimed against them by the petitioners. 4. Instant petition is filed by the petitioners challenging the correctness of the impugned order dated 22nd April, 2024 under Annexure-3 passed in connection with C.S. No.318 of 2016 by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Jajpur on the grounds stated therein. 5. Recorded the submissions of learned counsels for the respective parties. Page 2 of 3 6. In fact, an I.A. was filed in terms of Order I Rule 10(2) read with Section 151 CPC seeking impletion of the petitioners, however, learned Court below declined the same vide Annexure-3 with the conclusion that they are not necessary parties and that apart, in support of such impletion, not a scrap of paper was produced. Mr. Sarangi, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that all such necessary documents were filed along with the petition seeking such impletion but it has not been taken judicial notice of by learned Court below and while stating so, he refers to list of the documents annexed to the application as at Annexure-2. 7. Mr. Jena, learned AGA for the State, on the other hand, submits that the learned Court below did not commit any wrong in absence of any such documents being produced, while seeking impletion. In reply and response to the above, Mr. Sarangi, learned counsel for the petitioners refers to Annexure-2 and reiterates that all such relevant documents had been produced for consideration of learned Court below but it has not been taken cognizance of. 8. Upon reading of the application as at Annexure-2, the Court finds pleading on record in support of such impletion and necessary documents appended thereto have been placed reliance on. In such view of the matter, when the impletion was sought for by the petitioners and the documents relied upon seeking such impletion are a part of the application as made to reveal from Annexure-2, considering the submission of Mr. Sarangi, learned counsel for the petitioners and response of Mr. Jena, learned AGA for the State, the Court is of the view that the filing of the documents has been lost sight of by learned Court below, while reaching at such a conclusion, while denying impletion. In other words, the findings of the learned Court below vide Annexure-2 declining impletion of the petitioners on the basis of such a p. 3 conclusion is clearly erroneous as prima facie from Annexure-2, the relevant documents appear to have been filed demanding such impletion. So therefore, the Court is of the humble view that the request for impletion by the petitioners needs re-visit by the learned Court below and for that, the impugned order as at Annexure-3 is required to be interfered with, for a remand and a fresh order. 9. Accordingly, it is directed. 10. In the result, the CMP stands allowed. As a necessary corollary, the impugned order i.e. Annexure-3 dated 22nd April, 2024 in C.S. No.318 of 2016 is hereby set aside with the matter remitted to the Court of learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Jajpur for freshly considering of the application seeking impletion as per Annexure-3. The Court further directs that upon receiving a copy of the above order, the learned Court below shall do well to dispose of the application i.e. Annexure-2 upon hearing both the sides followed by an order at the earliest preferably within a period of four weeks from the date of such receipt. 11. In the circumstances, however, there is no order as to costs. 12. Urgent certified copy of this order be issued as per rules. (R.K. Pattanaik) Judge Balaram