Orissa High Court
Kaushalya Bai vs State Of Odisha And Others ..... ... on 7 May, 2026
Author: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
Bench: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CMP No.775 of 2026
Kaushalya Bai ..... Petitioner
Represented By Adv. -
Mr. Om Swarup
-versus-
State of Odisha and others ..... Opposite Parties
Represented By Adv. -
Mr. C.M. Singh, ASC
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA
Order No. ORDER
07.05.2026
01. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement
(Virtual/Physical Mode).
2. Heard the learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as the learned counsel for the State-Opposite Parties. Perused the CMP application as well as the documents annexed thereto.
3. The Plaintiff in Civil Suit No.72 of 2025 pending in the court of the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bargarh has approached this Court by filing the present CMP application thereby challenging the order 23.03.2026 at Annexure-5 passed by the learned trial court thereby rejecting the Plaintiff's application under Order-1 Rule-10 of the C.P.C. to add the Executive Officer, Bargarh and Page 1 of 5. Executive Engineer, PWD, Bargarh as parties to the suit.
4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner, at the outset, contended that initially the Plaintiff filed the above noted suit for declaration and permanent injunction. While the suit was pending, the present Opposite Party No.2 issued a notice for eviction to the Plaintiff-Petitioner. Thereafter, the Plaintiff-Petitioner moved an application before the learned trial court to add the Executive Officer, Bargarh and Executive Engineer, PWD, Bargarh as parties to the suit. Such application has been rejected by the learned trial court vide order dated 23.03.2026 at Annexure-5 only on the ground that the Plaintiff has not followed the procedure laid down in Section-80 of C.P.C. and no notice was given to the Executive Officer, Bargarh and Executive Engineer, PWD, Bargarh. In such view of the matter, learned trial court has come to a conclusion that since such mandatory procedure has not been followed, the Executive Officer, Bargarh and Executive Engineer, PWD, Bargarh cannot be added as parties to the suit. Accordingly, the prayer of the Plaintiff- Petitioner for addition of parties under Order-1 Rule-10 of C.P.C. has been rejected vide order dated 23.03.2026. Being aggrieved such order, the Plaintiff-Petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present CMP application.
5. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, contended before this Court that the learned trial court has Page 2 of 5. not committed any illegality in passing the impugned order dated 23.03.2026 at Annexure-5. He further submitted that since the procedure as laid down under Section 80 of C.P.C. has not been followed in respect of the Executive Officer, Bargarh and Executive Engineer, PWD, Bargarh, the learned trial court has rightly rejected the prayer of the Petitioner under Order-1 Rule-10 of C.P.C. to implead the Executive Officer, Bargarh and Executive Engineer, PWD, Bargarh as Defendants in the pending suit. In such view of the matter, learned counsel for the State contended that the CMP application is devoid of merit and accordingly, the same should be dismissed.
6. In reply to the submission made of the learned counsel for the State, learned counsel for the Petitioner, drawing attention of this Court to the notice at Annexure-2, submitted that although a notice under Section-80 of C.P.C. was given to the District Magistrate and Collector, Bargarh, the same was forwarded officially to the Executive Officer, Bargarh Municipaity and the Tahasildar, Bargarh, vide letter dated 18.09.2024 of the Office of the ADM, Bargarh. In such view of the matter, learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that since the Executive Officer, Bargarh and Executive Engineer, PWD, Bargarh had information regarding filing of the suit and they were given prior notice, the requirement of Section-80 of C.P.C. has been substantially complied with. In such view of the matter, learned counsel for the Petitioner further contended that the Page 3 of 5. rejection of the prayer of the Petitioner under Order-1 Rule- 10 of C.P.C. to implead the Executive Officer, Bargarh and Executive Engineer, PWD, Bargarh as parties to the suit at Annexure-5 is unsustainable in law. Accordingly, the same should be set aside.
7. Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing for both the sides, on a careful examination of the pleadings from the side of the Petitioner as well as the documents attached to the CMP application, this Court observes that the Petitioner being aggrieved by the order dated 23.03.2026 at Annexure-5, whereby the learned trial court has rejected his application under Order-1 Rule-10 of C.P.C., has approached this Court by filing the present CMP application. The only ground that appears from the impugned order is the non-compliance of Section-80 of the C.P.C. Although learned counsel for the Petitioner raised the ground and vehemently argued that it was within the notice and knowledge of the Executive Officer, Bargarh and Executive Engineer, PWD, Bargarh given the intimation by the ADM, Bargarh vide his letter dated 18.09.2024, however, the same has not at all been considered by the learned trial court while concluding that such prayer for impletion is bad in law in view of the fact that Plaintiff has not complied with the provision contained in Section-80 of the C.P.C.
8. This Court, on a close scrutiny of the impugned order Page 4 of 5. dated 23.03.2026, found that the trial court has not taken into consideration the letter dated 18.09.2024 of the ADM, Bargarh. With the aforesaid factual position, this Court is of the view that the matter requires fresh consideration by the learned trial court keeping in view the letter dated 18.09.2024 of the ADM, Bargarh. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 23.03.2026 at Annexure-5 is hereby set aside. Further, the matter is remanded back to the trial court to consider the matter afresh after providing opportunity of hearing to both sides and taking into consideration the letter dated 18.09.2024 of the ADM, Bargarh. Let the application of the Petitioner for impletion of Executive Officer, Bargarh and Executive Engineer, PWD, Bargarh as parties to the suit be considered and disposed of within a period of ten days from the date of communication of a certified copy of this order after providing an opportunity of hearing to both sides.
9. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the CMP stands disposed of.
( Aditya Kumar Mohapatra) Judge Debasis Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: DEBASIS AECH Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT Date: 14-May-2026 10:44:14 Page 5 of 5.