Plaintiff is the Master of the Suit and Cannot Be Forced to Litigate Against Unchosen Adversaries: Orissa High Court Quashes Trial Court's Order Adding Third Parties

Orissa High Court delivered a significant ruling under Article 227 of the Constitution, clarifying the scope of Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Justice Sashikanta Mishra set aside a Trial Court order that had permitted third-party villagers to be impleaded as defendants in a civil suit for injunction and compensation, despite the plaintiff having claimed no relief against them. The High Court emphatically reiterated that a plaintiff, being dominus litis, cannot be compelled to sue persons against her will unless it is judicially shown to be necessary for the adjudication of the dispute.

"Mere Possibility of Future Litigation Not a Ground for Compelling Impleadment" – Court Criticises Trial Court for Lacking Legal Justification

In sharp criticism of the lower court's reasoning, Justice Mishra observed:
"The Court below has not cited any reason justifying impletion of the third party-interveners. It has only been stated that the same would avoid multiplicity of suits but exactly how, has not been spelt out at all." [Para 14]
The Court ruled that the vague invocation of potential future litigation cannot substitute for the legal test mandated under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC, which requires necessity for effectual adjudication.

This case arose from a challenge to an order of the Trial Court which allowed five villagers to be added as defendants in a pending civil suit for permanent injunction and compensation filed by the petitioner, Sabita Sahu. The High Court held the impleadment to be unwarranted, emphasizing that when existing defendants have already raised identical pleas, the presence of additional parties is redundant.

The petitioner, Sabita Sahu, had instituted Civil Suit No. 496/2021 before the Senior Civil Judge, Baripada, seeking a decree of permanent injunction against certain individuals for disturbing her possession of the suit land and for compensation of Rs. 30,000. She claimed to have purchased the land via a Registered Sale Deed dated 21 May 2019, followed by mutation and conversion of the land from agricultural to Gharabari category under OLR proceedings. She alleged that some defendants (original Opp. Parties 6 to 9) were interfering with her possession, prompting the civil suit.

These defendants, in their written statement, claimed that the land in question was of Jungle Kisam and communal in nature—used as a public road, playground, grazing field, etc., for over a century by the villagers of multiple nearby villages. While the suit was pending, a group of third-party villagers (Opp. Parties 1 to 5) filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC to be impleaded as defendants, claiming communal interest in the suit land.

Despite objections from the plaintiff, the Trial Court allowed the application, citing prevention of multiplicity of suits. This order was challenged before the High Court under Article 227.

The principal legal question before the High Court was whether third parties, against whom the plaintiff has claimed no relief, can be added as defendants in a civil suit merely because they allege communal interest in the suit land, and when their contentions merely echo those of the existing defendants.

Justice Mishra began by reaffirming the principle that the plaintiff is dominus litis—the master of the suit—and has the liberty to choose whom to sue. He observed:

"The Plaintiff being dominus litis has the liberty to choose the party against whom it would claim relief… It cannot be compelled to implead parties unless the Court suo motu directs for impletion of party. But in no circumstances, the Defendant can compel the Plaintiff to implead party to the suit." [Para 12]

The Court clarified that the discretion under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC is to be exercised judicially and only when a party's presence is necessary for effectual and complete adjudication. The addition of parties cannot be justified if their role is merely to repeat the existing defendants’ contentions.

In this case, both the original defendants and the proposed parties had identically argued that the land was communal in nature. The High Court noted:

"There is no difference at all in the stand taken by the original defendants in their written statement and the plea of the third-party interveners... The third-party interveners have not put forth any other plea to demonstrate as to how their impletion is necessary." [Para 12]

Distinction from Supreme Court Precedent Cited by Respondents:

The respondent relied on Rahul S. Shah v. Jinendra Kumar Gandhi (2021) 6 SCC 418, to argue that necessary parties can be impleaded. However, the High Court rejected the applicability of this precedent by noting the factual distinction:

"In the judgment cited on behalf of the third-party interveners... the facts were completely different inasmuch as the impletion was sought for at the stage of execution proceeding... Obviously, the judgment cannot be applied to the facts of the present case." [Para 13]

Reliance on Supreme Court and Orissa High Court Precedents:

Justice Mishra extensively relied on the Supreme Court’s ruling in Sudhamayee Pattnaik v. Bibhu Prasad Sahoo (2022) 17 SCC 286, where it was held:

"As per the settled position of law, the plaintiffs are the dominus litis… nobody can be permitted to be impleaded as the defendants against the wish of the plaintiffs."

Similarly, in Kamal Kumar Bhawasinka v. SMV Beverages (P) Ltd., the Orissa High Court held:

"Non-joinder of party is at the risk of the Plaintiff… But in no circumstances, the Defendant can compel the Plaintiff to implead party to the suit."

In Md. Allauddin v. Collector, the Court reiterated that mere apprehension of collusion is not a ground for impleadment:

"Whatever may be the judgment and order in a suit, it cannot bind [a third party], as he was not a party in the suit."

The High Court concluded that there was no justification to add the third-party villagers as defendants when their interests were already represented, and no relief was sought against them. The ruling upholds the autonomy of the plaintiff and restricts unnecessary expansion of litigation.

"The impugned order cannot be sustained in the eye of law and warrants interference. Resultantly, the C.M.P. is allowed. The impugned order is set aside. The application filed by Opp. Party Nos.1 to 5 under Order I Rule 10 of C.P.C. is hereby dismissed." [Para 15]

This judgment reinforces the foundational civil procedure principle that the plaintiff is the architect of their litigation, and courts must exercise caution in allowing third-party impleadment, especially when it does not satisfy the statutory test of necessity.

Date of Decision: 31 October 2025