Orissa High Court Upholds Plaintiff's Right to Choose Adversaries in Civil Suit

Court Sets Aside Impleading Order, Affirms Plaintiff's Autonomy in Civil Proceedings

In a significant decision, the Orissa High Court has reinforced the principle that a plaintiff in a civil suit is the master of their case, holding the liberty to choose whom to litigate against. The judgment came as the court set aside an order by the Senior Civil Judge, Baripada, which had previously allowed the inclusion of additional defendants in a land dispute case filed by Sabita Sahu.

Presided over by Justice Sashikanta Mishra, the court examined the application filed by Sabita Sahu under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner challenged the trial court's order dated August 17, 2022, which permitted the third-party interveners to be impleaded as defendants under Order I Rule 10 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908.

The case in question revolved around a permanent injunction and compensation claim by Sahu, who alleged that the defendants had disturbed her possession of the suit land, purchased in 2019 and converted into homestead land. The original defendants contended that the land was communal, used for public purposes, and could not be privately owned.

Justice Mishra, in his judgment, emphasized the plaintiff's right as dominus litis to decide against whom to seek relief, noting that the court cannot compel the plaintiff to include additional parties unless their presence is essential for a fair adjudication. The judgment highlighted that the lower court's rationale for allowing the impleadment-to avoid future litigation-was inadequate as the existing defendants were adequately representing the communal interests.

The court referenced multiple precedents, including the Supreme Court's ruling in Sudhamayee Pattnaik v. Bibhu Prasad Sahoo, which underscores the plaintiff's autonomy unless compelling reasons dictate otherwise. The judgment reiterates that non-joinder of parties remains a risk borne by the plaintiff, and third-party intervention cannot be justified if existing parties sufficiently represent the case.

Justice Mishra's decision to set aside the trial court's order and dismiss the impleadment application affirms the doctrine that a plaintiff cannot be forced to litigate against parties they have not chosen, aligning with the established legal principles governing civil suits in India.

Bottom Line:

Plaintiff being dominus litis has the liberty to choose the party against whom relief is claimed. The plaintiff cannot be compelled to implead any party against their wish unless the Court suo motu directs such impletion for effective adjudication.

Statutory provision(s):  

• - Article 227 of the Constitution of India  
• - Civil Procedure Code, 1908, Order I Rule 10

Sabita Sahu v. Nishakar Singh, (Orissa) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2802719