p. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK I.A. No. 3931 of 2026 Arising out of W.P.(C). No. 798 of 2026 (An Application under Order I Rule 10 of CPC read with Chapter VI Rule 27A of the Orissa High Court Rules) AFR Mani Tirumala Projects Private Limited & another ....... Petitioners -Versus- State of Odisha & others ....... Opposite Parties Advocate(s) appeared in this case :- _________________________________________________________________ For Petitioners : Mr. G. Mukharji, Sr. Advocate with M/s. Ankita Mukhrji, S.D. Ray, A. Mishra, S. Acharya, A. Acharya, R.D.K. Dash & A. Naik, Advocates For Opp. Parties : Mr. A.R. Dash, Addl. Govt. Advocate Mr. Mohit Agarwal, Advocate For Intervenor _________________________________________________________________ CORAM: JUSTICE SASHIKANTA MISHRA ORDER 31st March, 2026 SASHIKANTA MISHRA, J. This order arises out of the application filed by Mani Tribhuvan Residents Welfare Association praying inter alia that they should be permitted to intervene p. 2 and be impleaded as an opposite party in the present writ application. 2. The Intervenor claims that that it is a registered association of allottees in respect of the residential project 8Mani Tribhuvan9 and has been granted deemed registration by the Bhubaneswar Development Authority under the provisions of the Odisha Apartment Ownership and Management Act, 2023.The Association represents the flat owners of the project and is entitled to ownership of the common areas, including the project land. 3. The case of the Intervenor is that the original project was developed pursuant to plan approval on 16.08.2010, which was subsequently revised on 13.02.2017. According to the Association, the project stood completed upon grant of occupancy certificate on 16.01.2019. Despite the project being an 8ongoing project9 within the meaning of Sections 2(p) and 2(q) of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (in short, RERA Act), the promoter (writ petitioners) failed to obtain registration under Section 3 of the Act. It is stated that the writ petitioner thereafter obtained a fresh plan permission on 17.02.2023 for p. 3 construction of multiple high-rise towers in place of the earlier approved duplex units and such permission is illegal and void. It is alleged that the said alterations were carried out without obtaining the consent of two-third of the allottees as provided under Section 14(2)(ii) of the RERA Act, 2016. Therefore, it is stated that the rights of the members of the Association would be directly affected by the outcome of the writ petition for which, it is a necessary and proper party to the proceeding. 4. Written objection has been filed by the writ petitioners objecting to the intervention application as not maintainable either in law or on facts. It is stated that the affidavit in support of the Intervention application has been sworn by a person who has not placed any material to demonstrate that he is duly authorized by the Association to represent it in the present proceeding. In the absence of any resolution or authorization, the deponent lacks locus to maintain the application. It is further stated that the Association represents only the flat owners in certain towers forming part of Phase-I of the project and that their rights are confined to the p. 4 respective units along with appurtenant common areas as defined in the sale deeds executed in their favour. According to the petitioners, the development of the project was envisaged in phases and the existence of subsequent phases was within the knowledge of the allottees at the time of purchase. It is also stated that the Association has wrongly claimed ownership over the entire project land, which is contrary to the terms of the sale deeds and the bye-laws of the Association. The petitioners have further relied upon documents to state that the Association itself had acknowledged the petitioners9 control over the land earmarked for subsequent development. 5. Heard Mr. Mohit Agarwal, learned counsel for the Intervenor- Association and Mr. Goutam Mukherjee, learned Senior Counsel with Ms. Ankita Mukhrji, learned counsel for the writ petitioner. 6. Mr. Agarwal would submit that the Association cannot be treated as a stranger as it represents the body of allottees. He argues that the outcome of the writ petition would have a direct bearing on the rights of the allottees in respect of the project land and common areas. He would p. 5 further submit that the subsequent development sought to be undertaken by the petitioner is not a mere extension but amounts to a substantial alteration of the original project, thereby attracting the provision of Section 14(2)(ii) of the RERA Act. According to him, non-compliance with the said provision directly affects the legal rights of the allottees. He therefore, submits that in the absence of the Association, the issues relating to the impact of such development on the rights of the allottees may not be effectively brought to the notice of this Court and for such reason, it is at least a proper party. 7. Per contra, Mr. Mukherjee would argue that the Association has no locus to seek intervention. He submits that the application itself is not maintainable, as the person swearing the affidavit has failed to place any material to demonstrate due authorization to represent the Association. He further argues that the members of the Association are confined to certain towers forming part of Phase-I of the project and their rights are limited to their respective units and appurtenant common areas as defined under the sale deeds. According to him, the project was always envisaged to p. 6 be developed in phases, and the subsequent development cannot be said to infringe any right of the Association. He also argues that the issues sought to be raised by the Association pertain to disputed questions of title, ownership, and alleged statutory violations, which are independent in nature and cannot be adjudicated in the present writ application. 8. At the outset, this Court deems it proper to consider the objection raised by the petitioners regarding lack of authorization of the deponent at the outset. The Intervenor is an association of allottees and has placed on record its status as a recognized body under the provisions of the Odisha Apartment Ownership and Management Act, 2023. In matters where collective rights of a body of allottees are asserted, a hyper-technical view with regard to authorization cannot be allowed to defeat the cause of substantive justice, particularly when the interest sought to be represented is prima facie identifiable. 9. The writ petition primarily concerns with the petitioners9 claim for deemed registration and/or rejection of its application for registration of its project under the RERA p. 7 Act. The scope of adjudication therefore, is confined to examining the petitioner9s entitlement within the statutory framework governing such registration. 10. The principal ground of the Association is that the subsequent development undertaken by the petitioner over the same project land, pursuant to plan permission on 17.02.2023, materially alters the nature of the original project and affects the rights of the existing allottees in respect of common areas. The petitioners, on the other hand, dispute such claim and state that the project was envisaged in phases and that the rights of the allottees are limited. 11. From the rival submissions, it appears that the issue as to whether the subsequent development constitutes a mere phase-wise continuation or a substantial alteration may have a bearing on compliance with the statutory requirements under the RERA Act, particularly Section 14(2)(ii) which mandates prior consent of two-thirds of the allottees in case of alterations affecting the sanctioned plan or common areas. To such limited extent, the submission of Mr. Agarwal has force. Page 8 of 11 12. At the same time, this Court is conscious that the present proceedings cannot be converted into a forum for adjudication of disputed questions relating to title, ownership, or inter se contractual rights between the parties. The role of the Association therefore, must remain confined to assisting the Court on aspects having a direct nexus with the statutory compliance relevant for consideration of the petitioners9 claim for registration under the RERA Act. 13. The Association representing the allottees, demonstrates a limited but direct interest in the subject matter of the writ petition, inasmuch as issues relating to statutory compliance may have a bearing on the decision regarding registration. Such interest is sufficient to treat the Association as a proper party if not a necessary party. 14. The principles of impleadment under Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, as applied to proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, permit addition of a party whose presence would assist in effective adjudication without enlarging the scope of the lis as held in the case of Ramesh Hirachand Kundanmal v. p. 9 Municipal Corpn. of Greater Bombay1, wherein the Supreme Court observed as follows: <5. It was argued that the Court cannot direct addition of parties against the wishes of the plaintiff who cannot be compelled to proceed against a person against whom he does not claim any relief. Plaintiff is no doubt dominus litis and is not bound to sue every possible adverse claimant in the same suit. He may choose to implead only those persons as defendants against whom he wishes to proceed though under Order 1 Rule 3, to avoid multiplicity of suit and needless expenses all persons against whom the right to relief is alleged to exist may be joined as defendants. However, the Court may at any stage of the suit direct addition of parties. A party can be joined as defendant even though the plaintiff does not think that he has any cause of action against him. Rule 10 specifically provides that it is open to the Court to add at any stage of the suit a necessary party or a person whose presence before the Court may be necessary in order to enable the Court to effectually and completely adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the suit. 6. Sub-rule (2) of Rule 10 gives a wide discretion to the Court to meet every case of defect of parties and is not affected by the inaction of the plaintiff to bring the necessary parties on record. The question of impleadment of a party has to be decided on the touchstone of Order 1 Rule 10 which provides that only a necessary or a proper party may be added. A necessary party is one without whom no order can be made effectively. A proper party is one in whose absence an effective order can be made but whose presence is necessary for a complete and final decision on the question involved in the proceeding. The addition of parties is generally not a question of initial jurisdiction of the Court but of a judicial discretion which has to be exercised in view of all the facts and circumstances of a particular case. 1(1992) 2 SCC 524 p. 10 7. The respondents do not seriously dispute the position that respondent 2 is not a necessary party to the suit in the sense that without their presence an effective order cannot be passed. However, they support the view that respondent 2 is a proper party whose presence is necessary for a complete adjudication on the controversy. In the light of the clear language of the rule, it is not open to the appellant to contend that a person cannot be added as defendant even in a case where his presence is necessary to enable the Court to decide the matter effectively.= 15. In the present case, the presence of the Association would aid this Court in considering the perspective of the allottees on issues having a direct nexus with statutory compliance, without altering the scope of the writ petition. 16. At this stage, this Court is not required to examine the merits of the rival claims, it is sufficient that the Association has shown a plausible interest in the subject matter. 17. Accordingly, this Court is satisfied that the Association is a proper party for effective adjudication of the issues involved. 18. I.A. No. 3931 of 2026 is therefore, allowed. The Association be added as opposite party No.5 to the writ petition. It is however made clear that the Association shall p. 11 confine its submissions to issues directly connected with the petitioners9 claim for registration under the RERA Act only. &&..&&&&&&&.. Sashikanta Mishra, Judge Orissa High Court, Cuttack The 31st March, 2026/A.K. Rana, P.A. Designation: P.A.