[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Orissa High Court
Markanda Sahoo vs Kanakalata Ray ... Opposite Party on 23 December, 2025
ORISSA HIGH COURT : CUTTACK
C.M.P. No.1291 of 2017
An application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India
***
Markanda Sahoo ... Petitioner
-VERSUS-
Kanakalata Ray ... Opposite Party
Counsel appeared for the parties:
For the Petitioner : Mr.S.S.Rao, Sr.Advocate
Mr.B.K.Mohanty, Advocate
For the Opposite Parties : Mr.N.P.Parija, Advocate
P R E S E N T:
HONOURABLE
MR. JUSTICE ANANDA CHANDRA BEHERA
Date of Hearing: 25.11.2025 :: Date of Judgment : 23.12.2025
J UDGMENT
ANANDA CHANDRA BEHERA, J.--
1. This Civil Miscellaneous Petition under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India, 1950 has been filed by the Petitioner
(Appellant in the first appeal vide R.F.A. No.66 of 2016)
challenging an order of rejection to his petition under Order 26
Rule 10-A of the C.P.C, 1908 passed on dated 11.09.2017
(Annexure-6) by the learned District Judge, Jagatsinghpur in
R.F.A. No.66 of 2016.
2. The factual backgrounds of this Civil Miscellaneous Petition,
which prompted the Petitioner for filing of the same is that, he
(Petitioner) being the Appellant had filed the first appeal vide
R.F.A. No.66 of 2016 challenging the judgment and decree of the
dismissal of the suit vide C.S. No.121 of 2008 passed on dated
31.08.2016 by the learned Civil Judge, Jr.Division,
Jagatsinghpur.
3. In that first appeal vide R.F.A. No.66 of 2016, he
(Appellant/Plaintiff) filed a petition under Order 26 Rule 10-A of
the C.P.C, 1908 praying for sending the signatures vide Exts.B/2,
B/3 and the LTIs on the sale deed No.58 dated 06.01.1982
(Ext.B) to the handwriting expert for scientific investigation and
comparison with his undisputed signatures and LTIs.
To which, the learned District Judge, Jagatsinghpur rejected
as per the impugned order dated 11.09.2017 (Annexure-6)
passed in R.F.A. No.66 of 2016 assigning the reasons that,
the genuineness of the sale deed in question vide R.S.D.
No.58 dated 06.01.1982 (Ext.B) was previously
decided/adjudicated in a suit vide C.S. No.139 of 2006 and an
appeal against the same vide R.F.A. No.23 of 2008 was
dismissed.
When, the same nature of petition under Order 26 Rule
10-A of the C.P.C, 1908 of the Petitioner was rejected by the
learned Trial Court in the earlier suit vide C.S. No.139 of 2006
and when, on the basis of the materials and evidence available
in the record, the subsequent suit vide C.S. No.121 of 2008 filed
by the Plaintiff was decided and against which, the appeal vide
R.F.A. No.66 of 2016 is subjudice/pending, then, the question
of entertaining the same nature of application under Order 26
Rule 10-A of the C.P.C, 1908 of the Plaintiff/Appellant in R.F.A.
No.66 of 2016 does not arise.
4. On being dissatisfied with the impugned order dated
11.09.2017 (Annexure-6) passed in R.F.A. No.66 of 2016, the
Appellant/Plaintiff thereof being the Petitioner filed this C.M.P.
under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950 praying for
quashing the above impugned order dated 11.09.2017
(Annexure-6) passed in R.F.A. No.66 of 2016.
5. I have already heard from the learned counsels of both the
sides.
6. When, the same nature of petition under Order 26 Rule 10-
A of the C.P.C, 1908 of the Petitioner for the same prayer was
rejected earlier on merit by the learned Trial Court in the earlier
suit vide C.S. No.139 of 2006 and when in the judgment and
decree passed in the earlier suit vide C.S. No.139 of 2006, the
genuineness of the sale deed No.58 dated 06.01.1982 (Ext.B) was
considered and decided and when that judgment and decree
passed in C.S. No.139 of 2006 was confirmed in R.F.A. No.23 of
2008 and when, the judgment and decree passed in the
subsequent suit vide C.S. No.121 of 2008 is under challenge in
the first appeal vide R.F.A. No.66 of 2016 for adjudication of all
points including the point relating to the genuineness of the sale
deed No.58 dated 06.01.1982 (Ext.B), on the basis of the
pleadings and evidence of the parties and when, the materials
available in the record are sufficient to pronounce the judgment
in first appeal vide R.F.A. No.66 of 2016 on merit and when as
per the opinion of the learned 1st Appellate Court, no additional
material or evidence is required for the decision of the first appeal
vide R.F.A. No.66 of 2016, then at this juncture, the question of
interfering with the impugned order of rejection to the petition
under Order 26 Rule 10-A C.P.C. of the Petitioner passed on
dated 11.09.2017 (Annexure-6) in R.F.A. No.66 of 2016 by the
learned District Judge, Jagatsinghpur through this C.M.P. filed
by the Petitioner does not arise.
Therefore, there is no merit in this Civil Miscellaneous
Petition filed by the Petitioner. The same must fail.
7. In result, the Civil Miscellaneous Petition filed by the
Petitioner is dismissed on contest.
8. As such, this CMP filed by the Petitioner is disposed of
finally.
(ANANDA CHANDRA BEHERA)
JUDGE
High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
23.12.2025// Binayak Sahoo
Jr. Stenographer
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
