Orissa High Court
Shri Braja Kishore Bedamatta vs Deepak Kumar Bedamatta & Others on 26 September, 2025
ORISSA HIGH COURT : CUTTACK
C.R.P. No.25 of 2023
An application for Revision under Section 115 of the Code of
Civil Procedure, 1908.
***
Shri Braja Kishore Bedamatta.
... Petitioner.
-VERSUS-
Deepak Kumar Bedamatta & Others.
... Opposite Parties.
Counsel appeared for the parties:
For the Petitioner : Mr. S.C. Samantaray. Advocate.
For the Opposite Parties : Mr. S.S. Das, Adv.
(For Opp. Party No.1)
P R E S E N T:
HONOURABLE
MR. JUSTICE ANANDA CHANDRA BEHERA
Date of Hearing: 16.09.2025 :: Date of Judgment : 26.09.2025
CRP No.25 of 2023 Page 1 of 12
JUDGMENT
ANANDA CHANDRA BEHERA, J.--
1. This revision under Section 115 of the CPC, 1908 has been
filed by the petitioner challenging the impugned order of rejection
to his petition under Order 7, Rule 11 read with Section 151 of
the CPC, 1908 passed on dated 22.04.2023 (Annexure-3) in I.A.
No.16 of 2022 arising out of C.S. No.40 of 2022 by the learned
Civil, Judge, Senior Division, Banpur in the District of Khordha.
2. The factual backgrounds of this revision, which prompted
the petitioner for filing of the same is that, the Opp. Party No.1 in
this revision i.e. Deepak Kumar Bedamatta filed a suit for
partition vide C.S. No.40 of 2022 being the sole plaintiff against
the petitioner and Opp. Party No.2 to 4 of this revision arraying
them as defendants praying for partition of his 1/5th share from
LOT Nos.1 and 2 of the suit properties in the plaint stating that,
"the suit properties are his ancestral properties, in
which, he (plaintiff) has 1/5th share. The suit
properties are the joint and undivided properties of
the plaintiff and defendants. The said suit
properties have not been partitioned between them
(plaintiff and defendants) as yet through metes and
bounds partition. For which, the suit properties are
liable to be partitioned and his 1/5th share
therefrom is to be curved out."
3. Having been noticed from the learned Trial Court in the said
suit for partition vide C.S. No.40 of 2022 filed by the plaintiff
(Deepak Kumar Bedamatta, Opp. Party No.1), the defendant No.1
of the said suit i.e. Braja Kishore Bedamatta filed an I.A. vide I.A.
No.16 of 2022 in that suit under Order 7, Rule 11 read with
Section 151 of the CPC, 1908 praying for rejection of the plaint of
the plaintiff (Deepak Kumar Bedamatta, Opp. Party No.1) on the
following grounds i.e.:
i) The suit properties are not liable for partition, as the
same are not the ancestral properties of the plaintiff.
ii) The suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable on the
ground of suppression of material facts.
iii) The suit of the plaintiff is barred by law of limitation,
for which, the suit of the plaintiff is liable to be
dismissed.
iv) Non-inclusion of all the family properties into the suit
schedule.
4. The plaintiff (Deepak Kumar Bedamatta, Opp. Party No.1)
objected to the aforesaid I.A. No.16 of 2022 of the defendant No.1
(Brajakishore Bedamatta) under Order 7, Rule 11 read with
Section 151 of the CPC, 1908 stating in his objection that, the
I.A. No.16 of 2022 under Order 7, Rule 11 read with Section 151
of the CPC, 1908 for rejection of plaint is not fulfilling any of the
essentials of the provisions of Order 7, Rule 11 of the CPC, 1908
entailing for rejection of his plaint. For which, the I.A. No.16 of
2022 filed by the defendant No.1 is liable to be rejected.
5. After hearing from the learned counsels of both the sides,
the learned Trial Court rejected to the I.A. No.16 of 2022 under
Order 7, Rule 11 read with Section 151 of the CPC, 1908 of the
defendant No.1 on dated 22.04.2023 assigning the reasons that,
the I.A. No.16 of 2022 of the defendant No.1 is not fulfilling any of
the essentials of Order 7, Rule 11 read with Section 151 of the
CPC, 1908 for rejection of plaint of the plaintiff.
6. On being aggrieved with the said order of rejection to the I.A.
No.16 of 2022 under Order 7, Rule 11 read with Section 151 of
the CPC, 1908 of the defendant No.1 passed on dated 22.04.2023
by the learned Trial Court, the defendant No.1 challenged the
same filing this revision being the petitioner against the plaintiff
arraying him as Opp.Party No.1 and also arraying other
defendants as Opp. Party Nos.2 to 4.
7. I have already heard only from the learned counsel for the
petitioner (defendant No.1) and the learned counsel for the Opp.
Party No.1 (plaintiff), as the Opp. Party Nos.2 to 4 did not
participate in the hearing of this Revision.
8. In order to assail the impugned order, during the course of
hearing of this revision, the learned Counsel for the petitioner
(defendant No.1) relied upon the following decisions :.
I. Bhagirath Prasad Singh Vs. Ram Narayan Rai
& Another reported in AIR 2010 Pat. 189.
II. Rajinder Kumar Kapur & Another reported in
2019 S.C.C. Online (Del.) 9472.
III. H. Vasanthi Vs. A. Santha (dead) through LRs
and others reported in AIR 2023 (SC) 3873.
IV. Kamini Bewa Vs. Srimati Dei & Others
reported in AIR 1990 Orissa 155.
V. C.N. Arunachala Mudaliar Vs. C.A.
Muruganatha Mudaliar & Another reported in
SCR (1954) 243.
VI. Keshardeo Chamria Vs. Radha Kissen
Chamria & Others reported in AIR 1953 (SC) 23.
9. For ascertaining the sustainability and justifiability of the
grounds taken by the petitioner (defendant No.1) as indicated
above in Para No.3 of this Judgment for rejection of the plaint of
the plaintiff (Opp. Party No.1) in the suit vide C.S. No.40 of 2022,
the same are discussed and analyzed hereunder serially and
chronologically one after another.
10. So far as the first ground raised on behalf of the petitioner
(defendant No.1) for rejection of the plaint of the plaintiff (Opp.
Party No.1) i.e. the suit properties are not liable for partition, as
the same are not the ancestral properties of the plaintiff is
concerned;
On this aspect the propositions of law has already been
clarified in the ratio of the following decision:
i. In a case between Mrs. Pooja Wasal Vs. Sh
Ramesh Grover & Others reported in 2025 LCL
188 (Delhi) at Para No.48 that, the question, as to
whether the suit properties are ancestral or self-
acquired is a mixed question of law and fact, which
can only be decided after trial. But, on that ground,
the plaint of the plaintiff cannot be rejected under
Order 7, Rule 11 of the CPC, 1908 at its initial
stage. (Para No.50)
So, in view of the propositions of law enunciated in the ratio
of the aforesaid decision, the ground raised on behalf of the
petitioner (defendant No.1) for rejection of the plaint of the
plaintiff that, the suit properties are not the ancestral properties
of the plaintiff cannot be a ground for rejection of the plaint of the
plaintiff under Order 7,Rule 11 fof the CPC, 1908.
11. So far as the 2nd ground raised on behalf of the petitioner
for rejection of the plaint of the plaintiff (Opp. Party No.1) i.e. the
suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable on the ground of
suppression of material facts is concerned;
On this aspect the propositions of law has already been
clarified in the ratio of the following decision:
i. In a case between Captain Rajesh Kumar Son of
Tara Kant Ojha Vs. Pramila Singh, wife of Anil
Singh decided on 03.09.2024 in Civil Revision
No.133 of 2016 (Patna) that, suppression of
material facts can be ascertained only from the
pleadings made in the written statement and the
evidence to be adduced by the parties. (Para Nos.22
& 27)
Therefore, in view of the principles of law enunciated in the
ratio of the aforesaid decision, the plaint of the plaintiff (Opp.
Party No.1) vide C.S. No.40 of 2022 cannot be rejected only on
the ground of suppression of material facts at the initial stage of
the suit.
12. So far as the 3rd ground raised on behalf of the petitioner
(defendant No.1) for rejection of the plaint of the plaintiff (Opp.
Party No.1) i.e. The suit of the plaintiff is barred by law of
limitation is concerned;
On this aspect the propositions of law has already been
clarified in the ratio of the following decisions:
i. In a case between Vidya Devi @ Vidya
Vati (dead) by LRs. VS. Prem Prakash &
Others reported in AIR 1995 Supreme
Court 1789 that, in a suit for partition,
there is always running cause of action and
unless and until it is established that, the
suit properties are not the joint and
undivided properties of the parties, the suit
for partition cannot be held as barred by
limitation.
ii. In a case between Shakti Bhog Food
Industries Ltd. Vs. The Central Bank of
India & Another reported in 2021 (1)
Civ.C.C. 1 (SC) that, Rejection of plaint--
Barred by Limitation--Plea of accrual of
cause of action whether genuine and
legitimate, is a mixed question of fact and
law. Order rejecting plaint cannot be
sustained. (Para Nos.13 & 22)
iii. In a case between Smt. Omwati & Others
Vs. Raghubar Singh Yadav & Others
reported in 2021 (1) Civ.C.C. 22 (All.) that,
Rejection of plaint--Barred by limitation--
Question of limitation is a mixed question of
fact and law which can only be determined
conclusively after parties lead their
evidence. (Para No.17)
Therefore, in view of the principles of law enunciated in the
ratio of the aforesaid decisions, the suit of the plaintiff cannot
reject holding that, the same is barred by limitation.
13. So far as the 4th ground raised on behalf of the petitioner
(defendant No.1) for rejection of the plaint of the plaintiff (Opp.
Party No.1) i.e. Non-inclusion of all the family properties into the
suit schedule is concerned;
It is very fundamental in law that, in a suit for partition, the
status of all the parties are as good as plaintiff.
The status of the parties in a suit for partition are in no way
different and separate from each other.
When the suit vide C.S. No.40 of 2022 filed by the plaintiff
(Opp. Party No.1) is a suit for partition, then, at this juncture, in
view of the above propositions of law, if the plaintiff has left out
some of the properties from the suit schedule, the defendant No.1
(petitioner in this revision) is not precluded under law to include
such left out properties into the suit schedule for partition of the
same along with other properties already included.
There is also no bar under law for the parties to include the
left out properties later on.
For which, on the ground of non-inclusion of all the joint
properties into the suit for partition, the plaint of the plaintiff
can never be rejected under Order 7, Rule 11 of the CPC.
14. So far as the 5th ground raised on behalf of the petitioner
(defendant No.1) for rejection of the plaint of the plaintiff (Opp.
Party No.1) i.e. Failure of the learned Trial Court to consider the
documents annexed with I.A. of the defendant No.1 (petitioner in
this Revision) for rejection of the plaint of the plaintiff is
concerned;
As per law, during the course of proving up of any document
by one party during trial against other party, the other party
should be given opportunity for the rebuttal of the same.
So in view of the above principles of law, the documents
annexed in the I.A. No.16 of 2022 by the defendant No.1
(petitioner in this Revision) for rejection of the plaint of the
plaintiff cannot be a ground for rejection of the same, as there
was no scope with the plaintiff at the time of consideration of
petition under Order 7, Rule 11 of the CPC to challenge the
genuineness, authenticity and relevancy of the said documents in
question relied by the defendant No.1 (petitioner in this Revision).
For which, the same cannot be a ground for rejection of the plaint
of the plaintiff.
15. As per the discussions and observations made above, all the
above grounds raised on behalf of the petitioner (defendant No.1)
for setting aside the impugned order of rejection to the petition
under Order 7, Rule 11 of the CPC, 1908 passed in I.A. No.16 of
2022 learned Civil, Judge, Senior Division, Banpur have become
unsustainable under law for the reasons assigned above.
For which, the question of interfering with the same through
this revision filed by the defendant No.1 (petitioner) does not
arise.
So, the decisions relied by the petitioner (defendant No.1)
indicated in Para No.8 of this Judgment have become
inapplicable to this Revision at hand for the reasons assigned
above.
16. When it is held that, the impugned order passed in I.A.
No.16 of 2022 are not intereferable through this revision filed by
the petitioner (defendant No.1), then, there is no justification
under law for setting aside the same.
17. Therefore, there is no merit in the revision filed by the
petitioner (defendant No.1). The same must fail.
18. In result, the revision filed by the petitioner (defendant No.1)
is dismissed on contest, but without cost.
19. As such, this revision is disposed of finally.
(ANANDA CHANDRA BEHERA)
JUDGE
High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
The 26 .09. 2025// Rati Ranjan Nayak
Sr. Stenographer
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack, India.
