Sarat Chandra Mohapatra vs State of Orissa and Others

L. Mohapatra, J.—Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

The order dated 10.7.2007 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kendrapara in L.A. Suit No. 6 of 1999 rejecting the application filed by the petitioner for being impleaded as a party to the suit under Order 1, Rule 10, C.P.C. is under challenge.

As it appears from the impugned order, a reference was made to the learned Civil Judge by the Land Acquisition Officer, Civil, Cuttack u/s 18 of the L.A. Act in which Sridhar Mohapatra was described as the land owner. The petitioner is the son of the said Sridhar Mohapatra. When notice was issued to the said Sridhar Mohapatra by the Court, it was received by the petitioner since the said Sridhar Mohapatra was dead by then. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an application under Order 1, Rule 10, C.P.C. for being impleaded as a party to the suit on the ground that he is the successor being son of the deceased Sridhar Mohapatra. Along with the said application, another petition u/s 5 of the Limitation Act was filed for condoning the delay in filing the application under Order 1, Rule 10, C.P.C. For an application under Order 1, Rule 10, C.P.C. no limitation arises. The learned Civil Judge decided the limitation matter and refusing to condone the delay, rejected the application filed under Order 1, Rule 10, C.P.C.

The procedure adopted by the learned Civil Judge is illegal and cannot be sustained in law.

There is no dispute that petitioner is the son of the deceased Sridhar Mohapatra and has filed the petition under Order 1, Rule 10, C.P.C. for impleading him as a party and there cannot be any question of limitation. I accordingly set aside the impugned order and direct that the petitioner be impleaded as a party in the suit.

The writ application is disposed of accordingly.