Introduction:
In a recent and significant ruling, the Orissa High Court reaffirmed the fundamental principle of civil jurisprudence that a plaintiff, being the dominus litis or master of the suit, cannot be compelled to implead third parties against whom no relief is sought. The single-judge bench of Justice Sashikanta Mishra, in the case of Sabita Sahu v. Nishakar Singh & Ors. (CMP No. 979 of 2022), decided on October 31, 2025, emphatically held that while the court may in some cases direct impleadment for complete adjudication, such power must not be exercised mechanically. The bench observed that the plaintiff alone has the discretion to choose whom to sue, and unless the presence of another party is essential for effective adjudication, no one can be forcibly added as a defendant merely to avoid “multiplicity of proceedings.” However, the Court clarified that if the plaintiff chooses to proceed without such impleadment, she does so at her own risk.
This decision, which sets aside the order of the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Baripada, allowing the impleadment of third-party interveners, reiterates judicial restraint in interfering with a plaintiff’s choice of parties and preserves the autonomy of litigants in civil suits.
Arguments:
The facts of the case revolved around a land dispute concerning a property that the petitioner, Sabita Sahu (the plaintiff before the trial court), had purchased from its recorded owner in 2019. Following the purchase, she entered into possession of the property. The land was originally agricultural but was duly converted into homestead land, and mutation was carried out in her name in accordance with law. However, as the petitioner claimed, her possession was twice disturbed by certain proforma defendants in 2021. Despite approaching the local police authorities for protection, no effective relief was obtained. Consequently, she filed a civil suit before the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Baripada, seeking a permanent injunction to restrain the defendants from interfering with her peaceful possession.
While the case was pending, certain opposite parties—villagers from nearby areas—moved an application under Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), seeking to be impleaded as defendants in the said suit. Their contention was that the disputed land was jungle kisam (forest category) and communal in nature, used as a public road, grazing ground, and playground by the local community. They argued that since they had communal interest in the land, their impleadment was necessary for an effective and just adjudication of the dispute.
The plaintiff strongly objected to this application, arguing that she sought no relief against the proposed interveners and that their impleadment would unnecessarily complicate and delay the proceedings. She asserted that the presence of these parties was not required for the resolution of the core issue—her right to enjoy possession over her property, duly recorded and mutated in her name. The trial court, however, allowed the impleadment application, reasoning that doing so would avoid multiplicity of suits. Dissatisfied with this order, the plaintiff approached the Orissa High Court through a civil miscellaneous petition.
Before the High Court, counsel for the petitioner, Advocate Anupam Dash, contended that the order of the Civil Judge was arbitrary and contrary to established legal principles. He argued that the concept of dominus litis allows a plaintiff to decide against whom to claim relief. Relying on precedents, he emphasized that a plaintiff cannot be compelled to implead parties whose presence is neither necessary nor proper for adjudicating the dispute. He further submitted that the trial court’s observation that impleadment would prevent multiplicity of litigation was vague and unsupported by reasoning. The petitioner asserted that the pleas advanced by the interveners were identical to those already taken by the existing defendants, making their inclusion redundant.
On the other hand, counsel for the opposite parties, Advocate P.K. Satapathy, defended the trial court’s decision, contending that the disputed land was a communal property belonging to the villagers, and hence, their interests were directly affected. He argued that the impleadment was necessary to ensure that the judgment of the civil court would bind all interested parties and to avoid future disputes over the same land. The counsel emphasized that if the interveners were excluded, there could be a possibility of multiple suits being filed later, leading to conflicting decisions. Therefore, he argued that the order of the trial court was justified and in the interest of justice.
Court’s Judgment:
After considering the submissions of both sides and examining the records, Justice Sashikanta Mishra began his analysis by revisiting the principle of dominus litis, a Latin term meaning “master of the suit.” The Court noted that the law grants a plaintiff complete autonomy to choose the defendants against whom she seeks relief. However, this right is not absolute; in certain exceptional cases, courts may, suo motu, direct the addition of necessary parties to ensure complete adjudication of issues. Nevertheless, such directions must be grounded in necessity and not mere convenience.
The bench observed that the trial court’s order lacked clarity and reasoning. It had merely stated that impleadment would prevent multiplicity of proceedings but failed to explain how or why. Justice Mishra remarked:
“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. As already stated, the plaintiff being dominus litis cannot be forced to implead someone against whom she does not specifically seek any relief. It goes without saying that if she has chosen not to, she does so at her own risk.”
The Court examined the written statement filed by the original defendants and found that their defense and the arguments advanced by the proposed interveners were identical. Both sets of parties claimed that the land was jungle kisam and communal, used as a grazing ground and public passage for villagers. Hence, the Court held that the interveners’ presence was not necessary for effective adjudication since the issue was already fully represented in the pleadings of the original defendants.
The bench further clarified the distinction between “necessary” and “proper” parties under Order I Rule 10 of the CPC. A necessary party is one without whom no effective decree can be passed, whereas a proper party is one whose presence aids in the complete resolution of the dispute. The Court held that the interveners in the present case were neither. Their interests were already protected and represented by the existing defendants. Adding them would not contribute to better adjudication but would instead cause unnecessary delay and procedural complexity.
Justice Mishra also relied on the Supreme Court’s ruling in Sudhamayee Pattnaik v. Bibhu Prasad Sahoo, (2022 LiveLaw (SC) 773), wherein it was categorically held that unless the court itself deems a third party’s presence necessary for proper adjudication, no individual can be impleaded as a defendant against the will of the plaintiff. The apex court had clarified that while plaintiffs enjoy autonomy over party selection, they bear the risk of exclusion if an omitted party later raises a valid claim. Quoting this precedent, the Orissa High Court reiterated that judicial discretion under Order I Rule 10 must be exercised cautiously and in accordance with the plaintiff’s substantive rights.
The Court concluded that the trial court had erred in allowing the impleadment application without sufficient justification. The proposed interveners had failed to demonstrate how their presence was indispensable to the adjudication of the suit. Justice Mishra observed that avoiding multiplicity of proceedings cannot, by itself, justify impleadment unless the interveners’ rights are directly and substantially affected by the suit’s outcome.
Accordingly, the High Court allowed the civil miscellaneous petition, set aside the impugned order of the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Baripada, and held that the plaintiff cannot be compelled to implead the opposite parties as defendants. However, the Court reiterated that such a decision carries its own consequences—the plaintiff assumes the risk of future litigation if the omitted parties later assert independent claims.
In his concluding remarks, Justice Mishra succinctly summed up the legal position:
“The plaintiff being dominus litis cannot be compelled to implead a party against whom no relief is sought. If she chooses not to do so, she does so at her own peril. Courts must refrain from interfering with such discretion unless the absence of the party renders the adjudication impossible or ineffective.”