[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Orissa High Court
Rabinarayan Sahoo And Others vs Narahari Sahoo And Others .... Opposite ... on 29 November, 2025
Author: B.P. Routray
Bench: B.P. Routray
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BASANTA KUMAR BARIK
Reason: Authentication
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
Date: 01-Dec-2025 13:10:11
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
C.M.P. No.1600 of 2025
(In the matter of an application under Article 227 of the Constitution of
India)
Rabinarayan Sahoo and others .... Petitioners
-versus-
Narahari Sahoo and others .... Opposite Parties
Advocate(s) appeared in this case:-
For Petitioners : Ms. M. Mishra, Advocate
For Opposite Parties : Mr. D.P. Mohanty, Advocate
For O.P. No.1
CORAM: JUSTICE B.P. ROUTRAY
JUDGMENT
th
29 November 2025
B.P. Routray, J.
1. Heard Ms. M. Mishra, learned Advocate for the Petitioners and
Mr. D.P. Mohanty, learned Advocate for Opposite Party No.1.
2. Present C.M.P. is directed assailing the order dated 09.09.2025
of the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Jajpur Road passed in C.S.
No.55 of 2007, wherein the prayer of Defendant No.1 series to
examine one private Amin on their part was refused.
Signed by: BASANTA KUMAR BARIK
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
Date: 01-Dec-2025 13:10:11
3. Present Opposite Party No.1 filed the suit in C.S. No.55 of 2007
praying to declare his right, title and interest over the suit land and for
correction of major settlement record of right along with decree for
permanent injunction against Defendant No.1 and other consequential
reliefs.
4. After the parties have adduced their respective evidences, the
suit was posted for argument. At this stage, a petition under Order 26
Rule 9 C.P.C. filed by the Plaintiff for appointment civil court
commissioner was allowed and the report of the civil court
commissioner was accepted with objection by Defendant No.1 series.
While objecting the report of the civil court commissioner marked
under Ext.18, Defendant No.1 series, who are present Petitioners,
appended a report of a private Amin, who measured the land from the
side of the Defendant No.1 series without being authorized by the
court. On the objection of Defendant No.1 series, the civil court
commissioner was examined and cross-examined as Court Witness
No.1. After cross-examination of the civil court commissioner,
Defendant No.1 series filed a petition to examine the private Amin who
measured the land by their own from the side of Defendant No.1 in
Signed by: BASANTA KUMAR BARIK
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
Date: 01-Dec-2025 13:10:11
order to counter the evidence of the civil court commissioner. This is
refused by the court and as such present C.M.P. has been preferred.
5. According to present Petitioners, there is discrepancy in the
report of the civil court commissioner with the report prepared by self-
declared Amin on behalf of Defendant No.1 series and therefore, in
order to repudiate the claim of the Plaintiff to reveal gap between such
plots, it is necessary to examine the private Amin, who measured the
land on their behalf.
6. Having gone through the record, it is seen that nowhere the trial
court has directed or authorized any other private Amin to measure the
land on behalf of Defendant No.1 series. Learned trial court in exercise
of his discretion under Order 26 Rule 9, C.P.C. appointed the civil
court commissioner on the prayer of the Plaintiff, who submitted his
report. Not only the report of the civil court commissioner has been
marked in evidence (with objection), but also said civil court
commissioner has been examined as Court Witness No.1 and
Defendant No.1 series have also cross-examined him comprehensively.
So after the opportunity availed by Defendant No.1 series to cross
examine the civil court commissioner, it is found unnecessary to
Signed by: BASANTA KUMAR BARIK
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
Date: 01-Dec-2025 13:10:11
examine any other witness with regard to measurement of the land,
who is not authorized by the court to perform such measurement. The
private Amin, who is relied on by Defendant No.1 series, without
getting authority from learned trial court in such respect measured the
land on his own. Therefore, in absence of any order of the court
authorizing any other person than the civil court commissioner to
measure the land without knowledge of the Plaintiff or the court, is not
justified to be relied on for giving evidence in court at the stage of
argument particularly in order to counter the evidence of the civil court
commissioner appointed by the court. Therefore, no justification is
seen to interfere with the impugned order of the learned trial court.
7. In the result, the C.M.P. is dismissed and all the interim orders
stand vacated.
(B.P. Routray)
Judge
B.K. Barik/Secretary
