Amrut Neti And Another vs Bhamabati Pandey And Others ..... ...
2026 Latest Caselaw 1202 Ori

Orissa High Court

Amrut Neti And Another vs Bhamabati Pandey And Others ..... ... on 10 February, 2026

Author: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra

Bench: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra

                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
                                   CMP No.952 of 2025
            Amrut Neti and another          .....     Petitioners
                                                         Represented by Adv. -
                                                         Mr. Pabitra Kumar
                                                         Nayak

                                        -versus-
            Bhamabati Pandey and others      .....              Opposite Parties
                                                         Represented by Adv. -
                                                         Mr. Sambhu Ch.
                                                         Nathsharma

                                 CORAM:
            THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA

                                           ORDER

10.02.2026 Order No.

04. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual /Physical Mode).

2. Heard the learned counsel for the Petitioners as well as the learned counsel for the Opposite Parties. Perused the CMP application as well as the prayer made therein.

3. By filing the present CMP application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the Defendants-Petitioners in C.S. No.35 of 2011 have approached this Court challenging the order dated 19.05.2025 passed by the learned District Judge, Jharsuguda in Civil Revision No.02 of 2025 thereby confirming order dated 18.02.2025 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Jharsuguda in C.S. No.35 of 2011 rejecting the application of the Petitioners filed under Order-7 Rule-11 of the C.P.C.

4. Learned counsel for the Petitioners, at the outset, contended that the Opposite Parties-Plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration of right, title, interest and for conformation of possession. After appearance of the Defendants-Petitioners in the suit, the Defendants-Petitioners filed an application under Order-7 Rule-11 of C.P.C. at Annexure-4 to the CMP application. He further submitted that in view of the bar contained under Section 67 of the OLR Act, 1960 with regard to the bar of jurisdiction of the civil courts, the present suit is not maintainable as the jurisdiction of the civil court has been ousted in view of the aforesaid provision. With the aforesaid context, learned counsel for the Petitioners referred to Section-9 of the C.P.C. and submitted that the same provides that where the jurisdiction of the trial court is expressly or impliedly barred under any statutory provision, no suit lies in the common law forum. Accordingly, learned counsel for the Petitioners contended that the Petitioners filed the application under Order-7 Rule-11(d) of C.P.C. with a prayer for rejection of the plaint.

5. Learned counsel for the Petitioners further submitted that the learned trial court, by virtue of order dated 18.02.2025 passed in C.S. No.35 of 2011, rejected the application of the Petitioners under Order-7 Rule-11 of C.P.C. holding that the civil court has unlimited jurisdiction and unless the Defendant proves that any proceeding under the OLR Act is pending, the Civil Court has jurisdiction to decide all issues including the issue with regard to right, title and interest over the suit property. Being aggrieved by

such rejection order dated 18.02.2025, the Petitioners preferred a revision before the learned District Judge, Jharsuguda bearing Civil Revision No.02 of 2025. Learned revisional court vide its judgment dated 19.05.2025 examined the judgment of the learned trial court and ultimately dismissed the revision thereby affirming the order passed by the learned trial court in an application of the Petitioners under Order-7 Rule-11 of the C.P.C. While dismissing the revision petition, the learned revisional court has held that the ground taken in Order-7 Rule-11(d) of C.P.C. is a mixed question of fact and law and the same can only be adjudicated after evidence is adduced from both sides and at the final hearing of the suit. Accordingly, the decision of the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Jharsuguda has been upheld by the learned revisioanl court.

6. On a careful consideration of the order passed by both forums, this Court is of the view that the learned trial court as well as the learned revisional court have not committed any illegality at all. Moreover, the grounds taken in the application under Order-7 Rule-11(d) of C.P.C. involves questions of facts and law and, wherever, the same can only be adjudicated after evidence is adduced from both the sides and at the final hearing of the suit.

7. In such view of the matter, the present CMP application is being disposed of without interfering with the impugned judgment.

8. However, liberty is granted to the Petitioners to raise issue of maintainability of the suit before the learned trial court, which

shall be considered and answered by the learned trial court while delivering the final judgment in the suit after providing sufficient opportunity to both the sides to address the issue of maintainability.

9. Further, taking into consideration the fact that the suit is of the year 2011, the learned trial shall court shall make every endeavour to ensure that the trial be concluded as expeditiously as possible. The parties to the suit are directed to cooperate with the trial court for an early conclusion of the trial and they shall not take any unnecessary adjournments in the suit.

10. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the CMP stands disposed of.

( A.K. Mohapatra) Judge Debasis