Orissa High Court
Satyanarayan Tarai vs Rinkesh Panda & Another .... Opp. ... on 30 October, 2025
Author: Sashikanta Mishra
Bench: Sashikanta Mishra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CMP No.1410 of 2024
Satyanarayan Tarai .... Petitioner
Represented by
Mr. B.S. Tripathy, Advocate
-Versus-
Rinkesh Panda & Another .... Opp. Parties
Mr. S.K. Sarangi, Advocate
CORAM:
JUSTICE SASHIKANTA MISHRA
ORDER
30.10.2025
Order No.
09. 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.
. 2. The petitioner is the defendant No.1 in T.S. No.409 of 2001
pending before the learned Civil Judge, (Sr. Division),
Bhubaneswar. The present Opposite Party No.1 is the legal heir of
the original plaintiff, who died during pendency of the suit. The
petitioner himself is the legal heir of defendant No.2, who also died
during pendency of the suit.
3. The plaintiff filed an application under Order VI Rule 17 for
amendment of the plaint to incorporate the averment that as per the
voter list, Satyanarayan Tarai (petitioner) is not the son of Hari
Tarai, rather is the son of one Narasingh Das. The Court below, by
the order impugned allowed the petition by holding that an
additional issue can be framed "whether Satyanarayan Tarai is
entitled to be substituted in place of late Hari Tarai as his legal
heir".
4. Being aggrieved, the defendant No.1-petitioner has preferred
this writ application. It is basically contended that Hari Tarai had
earlier filed R.F.A. No.50 of 2009 challenging the judgment and
decree passed in the suit. During pendency of the appeal, the
present plaintiff being substituted in place of the original plaintiff,
had appeared and contested. At that stage, no objection was raised
with regard to the status of the present petitioner. Further, when the
petitioner had filed the petition for substitution, then also, there
was no objection from the side of the plaintiff.
5. Mr. Sarangi, learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff-
Opposite Parties submits that this was never an issue at the time of
substitution but the plaintiff subsequently came to know about the
actual status of the petitioner by verifying the voter list. Under
such circumstances, the petition for amendment was filed.
6. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and on going
through the impugned order, this Court is not inclined to interfere
for the reason that whether the petitioner is actually son of Hari
Tarai or not is a question to be determined on the basis of evidence
to be adduced by the parties. The trial Court has rightly framed an
additional issue in this regard. Both parties are at liberty to adduce
evidence.
7. The CMP is therefore, disposed of with the observation that
while deciding the additional issue so framed, the trial Court shall
also consider the effect of non-raising of any objection earlier by
the plaintiff to the claim of the petitioner as the son of Hari Tarai.
The suit being of the year 2001 and having been already remanded,
the trial Court shall do well to dispose of the same as early as
possible, preferably within a period of four months.
Signed by: PUSPANJALI GHADAI (Sashikanta Mishra)
Designation: Junior Stenographer
Reason: Authentication Judge
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack.
Date: 31-Oct-2025 18:52:30
Puspanjali
