[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Orissa High Court
Sri Purna Chandra Taria vs Sri Maheswar Pati ..... Opposite Party on 15 April, 2026
Author: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
Bench: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CMP No.609 of 2026
Sri Purna Chandra Taria ..... Petitioner
Represented by Adv. -
Mr. Banshidhar Baug, Senior
Advocate assisted by
Mr. Manas Ranjan Baug,
Advocate
-versus-
Sri Maheswar Pati ..... Opposite Party
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA
ORDER
15.04.2026
Order No.
01. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement
(Virtual /Physical Mode).
2. Heard Mr. Banshidhar Baug, learned Senior Counsel
appearing for the Petitioner. Perused the CMP application as
well as the prayer made therein.
3. The Plaintiff in Civil Suit No.19 of 2020 pending in the
court of learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bhawanipatna,
has approached this Court by filing the present CMP
application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India
thereby challenging the order dated 02.12.2025 passed by the
learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bhawanipatna in C.S.
No.79 of 2020 wherein the Petitioner is the Defendant.
4. By virtue of the impugned order dated 02.12.2025, the
learned trial court rejected the petition for analogous hearing of
both the suits filed by the Defendant in C.S. No.79 of 2020,
who also happens to be the Plaintiff in C.S. No.19 of 2020,.
5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner, at the outset,
contended that initially the Petitioner as Plaintiff filed C.S.
No.19 of 2020 in the court of learned Civil Judge (Senior
Division), Bhawanipatna with a prayer for declaration of right,
title, interest and possession over the suit scheduled 'B' land
and joint right, title, interest and possession over scheduled 'C'
land with the Defendant. Learned counsel for the Petitioner, at
this juncture, contended that the Defendant in C.S. No.19 of
2020 filed another suit i.e. C.S. No.79 of 2020 before the very
same court i.e. Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bhawanipatna
with a prayer for declaration of right, title and interest and
ownership of the Plaintiff over suit scheduled 'A' and 'B'
landed properties to the exclusion of the Defendant, and to
declare Willnama vide document No.18/2001 dated 07.06.2001
in respect of the suit scheduled landed property as illegal,
fraudulent, fake, and marred by undue influence and
misrepresentation, and not binding on the Plaintiff.
6. Learned counsel for the Petitioner, at the outset,
contended that both the Plaintiff and the Defendant belong to
the same family. He further contended that initially one
Arakhita Pati executed a Willnama in favour of the present
Petitioner and the Defendant jointly bequeathing the ancestral
land. The dispute arose after the death of the original owner,
namely, Late Arakhita Pati. The Plaintiff, on the basis of the
Willnama dated 07.06.2001, as has been pleaded in Para-2 of
the plaint in C.S No.19 of 2020, approached the learned trial
court for declaration of his right, title and interest to the extent
of his share that has been bequeathed in his favour by virtue of
the aforesaid Will. The Plaintiff in C.S. No.79 of 2020 is the
Defendant in C.S. No.19 of 2020.
7. Mr. Baug, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the
Petitioner further contended that the Opposite Party in the
present CMP, who is the Plaintiff in C.S. No.79 of 2020, filed
the said suit before the very said court of the learned Civil
Judge (Senior Division), Bhawanipatna challenging the Will,
which is also the subject matter of dispute in the first suit on
the ground that the same has been obtained fraudulently.
Accordingly, in the subsequent suit, which was filed by the
present Opposite Party as Plaintiff, the Petitioner was made
Defendant. The present Opposite Party in the suit bearing C.S.
No.79 of 2020 has also prayed for declaration of right, title,
interest and ownership over the Plaintiff over suit scheduled
'A' and 'B' landed properties to the exclusion of the Defendant
therein (Petitioner in the present CMP application) and for a
declaration that the Willnama dated 07.06.2001 has been
obtained illegally, fraudulently and by misrepresentation and
that the Plaintiff in that suit is not bound by the said Willnama
along with an additional prayer for recovery of possession of
the dwelling house.
8. By referring to the plaints filed in both the cases i.e. in
C.S. No.19 of 2020 as well as C.S. No.79 of 2020, learned
Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioner tried to
demonstrate before this Court that the issue involved in both
the cases are almost identical. In the first suit the Plaintiff-
Petitioner is claiming his right by virtue of a Will executed by
Late Arakhita Pati. Similarly, the Opposite Party in the
present CMP and the Defendant in the first suit has filed the
second suit as Plaintiff seeking for declaration of his right, title
and interest, and a further declaration that the Will on the basis
of which the Petitioner-Plaintiff is claiming his right in the first
suit has been obtained fraudulently. It is not disputed that the
parties in the both suits are identical and that the property
involved is the self-same property.
9. On a careful consideration of the plaints in both the suits,
this Court found that the parties in both the suits are almost
identical i.e. the Petitioner in the present CMP is Plaintiff in the
first suit and the Defendant in the second suit. Similarly, the
Opposite Party in the present CMP is the Plaintiff in the second
suit and that Defendant the first suit. Moreover, on a careful
analysis of the factual background of both the suits, it appears
that the bone of contention in both the suits is the validity and
geniuses of the Willnama executed by Late Arakhita Pati. In
the first suit, the Plaintiff supports the execution of the
Willnama and claims his right, title and interest on the basis to
such Willnama. However, the Opposite Party, who is the
Plaintiff in the second suit, has sought for a relief in the shape
of a declaration that the Will, on the basis of which the
Plaintiff-Petitioner is claiming his right, title and interest over
the suit land, has been obtained fraudulently and that he is not
bound by such Willnama. On a careful analysis of the factual
background of both suits, this Court is of the view that
although the issues to be adjudicated in both the suits may not
be identical, however, the dispute involved, the property
involved and the parties in both the suits are almost similar.
10. In the aforesaid factual background, this Court is of the
view that the learned trial court, to save valuable judicial time,
should have tried both the suits analogously. This Court is also
of the view that the witnesses in both the suits are likely to be
identical and belong to a particular locality. Therefore,
summoning the same witnesses repeatedly to court in disputes
of identical nature where the parties are contesting on the basis
of the validity or invalidity of the self-same Willnama, would
only amount to wastage of valuable time of the court and
unnecessarily prolong the dispute between the parties.
11. So far the Opposite Party-Defendant in the first suit, i.e.
the Plaintiff in the second suit is concerned. On perusal of the
impugned order dated 02.12.2025, it is found that the learned
trial court in the first paragraph of order dated 02.12.2025 has
categorically observed that Opposite Party did not raise any
objection to the analogous hearing of both the suits. However,
the learned trial court proceeded to adjudicate the prayer for
analogous hearing of the suits on its own merit and, after a
detailed discussion, has concluded that since the issues are not
identical, both the suits could not have been taken up
analogously by the learned trial court.
12. On a careful consideration of the factual dispute involved
in both the suits in its entirety, this Court is of the view that
such finding of the learned trial court may not hold good in
light of the factual background of the present case. Therefore,
this Court has every reason to believe that the learned trial
court has not adopted the right approach while rejecting the
prayer for analogous hearing of both the suits.
13. In view of the aforesaid analysis of the factual
background of the present case and on a careful examination of
the impugned order dated 02.12.2025 passed by the learned
Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bhawanipatna in C.S. No.79 of
2020 at Annexure-3 to the present CMP application, this Court
is of the view that the same is unsustainable in law.
Accordingly, the order dated 02.12.2025 at Annexure-3 is
hereby set aside. Further, the CMP is allowed with a direction
to the learned trial court to club the suits together, proceed in
both the suits analogously and make every endeavour to
dispose of the suits at the earliest. The parties are directed to
cooperate with the trial court for an early conclusion of the
trial.
14. Since this order has been passed without issuing notice to
the Opposite Party, although he has not raised objection before
the learned trial court, this Court grants liberty to the Opposite
Party to seek for variation/modification of this order in the
event it is found that the Petitioner has either suppressed any
material facts or misled this Court on any factual aspect by
filing an application.
15. Accordingly, CRLMC stands disposed of.
( A.K. Mohapatra )
Judge
Debasis
`
