Karunakar Panda vs Nityananda Panda & Another
2026 Latest Caselaw 2505 Ori

Orissa High Court

Karunakar Panda vs Nityananda Panda & Another on 17 March, 2026

                 ORISSA HIGH COURT : CUTTACK

                     CMP No.212 of 2021

An application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

                             ***

Karunakar Panda

... Petitioner.

-VERSUS-

Nityananda Panda & Another

... Opposite Parties.

Counsel appeared for the parties:

For the Petitioner : Mr. Sidhartha Mishra, Advocate.

For the Opposite Parties : Mr. S.N. Mishra-4, Advocate.

(For the Opp. Party No.2)

P R E S E N T:

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANANDA CHANDRA BEHERA

Date of Hearing : 02.02.2026 :: Date of Judgment :17.03.2026

J UD G M E N T

ANANDA CHANDRA BEHERA, J.--

1. This Civil Miscellaneous Petition under Article 227 of the

Constitution of India, 1950 has been filed by the petitioner

praying for quashing the impugned Judgment dated

24.02.2021 passed in F.A.O No.99/2018 arising out of CMA

No.40/2018 in connection with the counterclaim in the suit

vide C.S. No.61 of 2014 by the learned District Judge,

Bhadrak.

2. The factual backgrounds of this Civil Misc. Petition,

which prompted the petitioner for filing the same is that, the

Opp. Party No.1 in this CMP i.e.Nityananda Panda being the

sole plaintiff filed a suit for partition vide C.S. No.61 of 2014

in the Court of learned Civil Judge, (Junior Division),

Basudevpur against the Opp. Party No.2 and petitioner in this

CMP i.e. against Gouranga Ch. Panda and Karunakar Panda

arraying them as defendant Nos.1 and 2 respectively praying

for partition of the suit properties.

In that suit vide C.S. No.61 of 2014, the defendant No.2

Karunakar Panda (petitioner in this CMP) filed a counter claim

along with his written statement under Order 8, Rule 6A of

the CPC, 1908 praying for partition of his 8 Annas share from

the suit properties.

Thereafter, the plaintiff (Nityananda Panda) did not

prosecute the suit. For which, as per Order dated 15.12.2017,

the suit of the plaintiff vide C.S. No.61/2014 was dismissed

for the default of the plaintiff.

So, the counter claim of the defendant No.2 was

continued for filing of written statement by the plaintiff

(Nityananda Panda), but, the plaintiff (Nityananda Panda)

neither filed any written statement nor choose to participate in

the counter claim of the defendant No.2 (Karunakar Panda).

For which, in the counter claim of the defendant No.2, the

plaintiff was set ex parte.

Therefore, the counter claim of the defendant No.2 was

heard ex parte. The defendant No.2 adduced evidence from his

side in his counter claim. After hearing of the arguments from

the side of the defendant No.2 in respect of his counter claim,

the counter claim of the defendant No.2 was decreed ex parte

against the plaintiff as per its Judgment and Decree dated

25.07.2017 and 10.08.2017 respectively preliminarily for

partition of his 8 Annas share from the suit properties.

Thereafter, the defendant No.2 initiated the final decree

proceeding in respect of the ex parte decree of his counter

claim in his favour.

In that final decree proceeding, notice was issued to the

defendant No.1 (Gouranga Chandra Panda).

From that notice in the final decree, he (defendant No.1)

came to know, for the first time about the ex parte Judgment

& Decree passed in respect of the counter claim of the

defendant No.2 in the suit vide C.S. No.61/2014.

So, he (defendant No.1-Gouranga Chandra Panda) filed

a Civil Misc. Application vide CMA No.40/2018 under Order 9,

Rule 13 of the CPC, 1908 praying for setting aside the ex-

parte Judgment and Decree dated 25.07.2017 and 10.08.2017

respectively passed in respect of the counter claim of the

defendant No.2 in favour of the defendant No.2 in the suit

vide C.S. No.61/2014 on the ground that, he (defendant No.1)

had/has share/interest in the suit properties and in the

counter claim of the defendant No.2 for partition of the suit

properties, he (defendant No.1) should have been served with

notice, but no notice was issued/served on him (defendant

No.1). For which, due to non-service of notice against him

(defendant No.1) in the counter claim of the defendant No.2,

the exparte Judgment & Decree passed in the counter claim of

the defendant No.2 is liable to be set aside.

3. The defendant No.2 objected to the CMA No.40 of 2018

stating that, he (defendant No.2) had filed his counter claim

only against the plaintiff, his co-defendant i.e. defendant No.1

is in no way related with his counter claim. For which, there

was no necessity under law to serve notice of his counter

claim on the defendant No.1. Because, as per law, counter

claim of the defendant No.2 in the suit was maintainable only

against the plaintiff, but not against the defendant No.1. For

which, the preliminary decree passed in his favour in respect

of his counter claim cannot be set aside under Order 9, Rule

13 of the CPC, 1908, on the ground of non-service of notice of

his counter claim on the defendant No.1. Therefore, the CMA

No.40/2018 under Order 9, Rule 13 of the CPC, 1908 filed by

the defendant No.1 is liable to be dismissed.

4. After hearing from both the sides, the learned Civil Judge,

(J.D.), Basudevpur dismissed to the CMA No.40/2018 under

Order 9, Rule 13 of the CPC, 1908 of the defendant No.1 on

dated 03.12.2018 assigning the reasons that,

"the counter claim of the defendant No.2 in the suit vide C.S. No.61/2014 was only against the plaintiff, in which, no notice was required to be issued by the defendant No.2 to the defendant No.1."

5. On being dissatisfied with the said order of dismissal to

the CMA No.40/2018 under Order 9, Rule 13 of the CPC,

1908 of the defendant No.1 (Gouranga Chandra Panda), he

(Gouranga Chandra Panda) challenged the same preferring an

appeal under Order 43, Rule 1 (d) of the CPC, 1908 vide F.A.O

No.99/2018 before the learned District Judge, Bhadrak being

the appellant against defendant No.2 and plaintiff arraying

them as respondent Nos.1 and 2 respectively.

6. After hearing from the learned counsels of both the sides,

the learned Appellate Court i.e. learned District Judge,

Bhadrak allowed that appeal vide F.A.O. No.99/2018 of the

defendant No.1-Gouranga Chandra Panda and set aside to the

dismissal order of CMA No.40/2018 passed on dated

03.12.2018 by the learned Civil Judge, (J.D.), Basudevpur

and also set aside to the impugned ex parte Judgment and

Decree dated 25.07.2017 and 10.08.2017 respectively passed

in favour of the defendant No.2 in respect of his counter claim

in the suit vide C.S. No.61/2014 as per the Judgment dated

24.02.2021 passed in FAO No.99/2018 and directed to the

learned Civil Judge, (J.D.), Basudevpur to proceed with the

counter claim of the defendant No.2 in the suit vide C.S.

No.61/2014 afresh after giving chance to the defendant No.1

for participating in the hearing of that counter claim of the

defendant No.2 and also directed the parties to appear before

the learned Civil Judge, (J.D.), Basudevpur on dated

30.03.2021 in the counter claim of the defendant No.2 in C.S.

No.61/2014 in order to receive the direction of the said Court

as to further proceeding of the counter claim of the defendant

No.2 as per its Judgment dated 24.02.2021 assigning the

reasons that,

"as per Order 8, Rule 6-A, Sub-Rule 4 of the CPC, 1908, a counter claim is to be treated as a plaint and the same is to be governed by the rules applicable to plaint. Admittedly the defendant No.1 was not served with any notice in the counter claim of the defendant No.2, though, the counter claim of the defendant No.2 was for partition of his 8 annas share from the suit properties, in which, the defendant No.1 has interest as per documents.

When the plaintiff was in support of the counter claim of the defendant No.2 and when counter claims are mostly filed by the defendants against plaintiff/plaintiffs and when the counter claim of the defendant No.2 was for partition of the suit properties and when the defendant No.1 has interest in the suit properties and when the plaintiff did not choose to oppose the counter claim of the defendant No.2, then, in such a situation, it was necessary for the defendant No.2 to serve the notice of his counterclaim upon the defendant No.1. Because, the prayer of the defendant No.2 in his counter claim for partition shall ultimately affect the interest of the defendant No.1 in the suit properties. Therefore, the relief i.e. partition sought for by the defendant No.2 in respect of the suit properties in his counterclaim was also indirectly against his Co- defendant No.1. For which, due to non-service of notice in the counter claim of the defendant No.2 on one of the affected party i.e. defendant No.1 is fatal to the ex parte judgment and decree for partition of the suit properties in favour of the defendant No.2 in his counter claim."

7. On being aggrieved with the aforesaid Judgment dated

24.02.2021 passed by the Appellate Court in F.A.O

No.99/2018 under Order 43 Rule 1(d) of the CPC, 1908

against the defendant No.2 (Karunakar Panda), he (defendant

No.2) challenged the same by filing this CMP under Article

227 of the Constitution of India, 1950 being the petitioner

against the defendant No.1 (Gouranga Ch. Panda) arraying

him as Opp. Party No.2 and also arraying the plaintiff as Opp.

Party No.1 praying for quashing the same on the ground that,

the counter claim of the defendant No.2 (Karunakar Panda) in

the suit vide C.S. No.61/2014 was only against the plaintiff,

but not against his co-defendant No.1 (Gouranga Ch. Panda).

Because, as per law, the counter claim of any defendant like

defendant No.2 is maintainable only against the plaintiff, but

not against his/her co-defendant like defendant No.1. For

which, no notice was required to be served in his counter

claim against the defendant No.1. So, in view of such

principles of law, the ex parte Judgment and Decree passed in

his favour in respect of his counter claim should not have

been set aside by the learned Appellate Court in F.A.O

No.99/2018 and the order of dismissal to the CMA

No.40/2018 under Order 9, Rule 13 of the CPC, 1908 of the

defendant No.1 passed by the learned Trial Court should have

been confirmed.

8. I have already heard from the learned counsel for the

petitioner (defendant No.2 i.e. Karaunakar Panda in the suit)

and the learned counsel for the Opp. Party No.2 (defendant

No.1 i.e. Gouranga Ch. Panda in the suit).

9. In order to assail the impugned Judgment passed by the

learned Appellate Court, the learned counsel for the petitioner

relied upon the following decisions:

(i) Sanjay Tiwari Vs. Yugal Kishore Prasad Sao & Others reported in 2025 INSC 1310 that, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order VIII Rule 6A - Counter Claim - Maintainability against Co-Defendant - Held, a counter-claim cannot be directed solely against a co-defendant; it must be directed against the plaintiff-

While a counter-claim can be based on a different cause of action than that put forth in the suit, it should be incidental or connected with that cause of action and has necessarily to be directed against the plaintiff- Counter claim by defendants 2 & 3 against defendant No. 1 for specific performance in a suit filed by the plaintiff set aside- Appeal allowed.

(ii) Basanta Behera & Others Vs. Menakabala Behera & Others decided on 08.04.2019 in C.M.P. No.1101 of 2018 (Orissa High Court) that, counterclaim against the co-defendants in a suit for partition cannot be maintained. The litigation cannot be converted into some sort of an inter pleader suit.

10. As per the rival submissions of the learned counsels of

both the sides, the crux of this CMP is that,

Whether, in the counter claim of the defendant No.2 for partition of his 8 Annas share from the suit properties, notice was required to be issued/served on the defendant No.1 as per law and whether in absence of issuance of notice of the counter claim of the defendant No.2 to the defendant No.1, the ex parte Judgment and Decree passed in the counter claim of the defendant No.2 in his favour for partition of his 8 Annas shares from the suit properties are sustainable under law?

11. It is the settled propositions of law that,

"the defendant cannot file counter claim solely against his/her co-defendant or co-defendants, though, incidentally or along with it, the defendant may also claim relief in the counter claim against his/her co-defendant or co-defendants in the suit, but the counter claim solely by a defendant against his co- defendants is not entertainable under law. Because, by filing a counter claim by one defendant against his co-defendant in a suit, the said suit cannot be converted into some sort of an interpleader suit. The defendant cannot also file any counter claim in respect of the properties, which is not the subject matter of the suit.

The intention of the provision debarring a co-defendant to file counter claim solely against the co-defendant i.e. against each other is that, interse disputes between the co-defendants cannot be decided in a suit. For which, the defendant is to initiate a separate and independent suit claiming relief against his co-defendant.

The main purpose/object of introducing Rule 6A of Order 8 of the CPC, 1908 relating to the filing of counter claim by a

defendant is only to avoid the multiplicity of proceedings/litigations by driving the parties to file separate suit and to see that, the dispute between the parties is decided finally in one suit.

As per law, the counter claim of a defendant is to be treated as a separate suit and the procedures, which will govern the suit, the same procedures will govern the counter claim of the defendant. Because, the counter claim of the defendant is a cross suit."

On this aspect the propositions of law has already been

clarified in the ratio of the following decisions:

I. In a case between Rohit Singh & Others Vs. State of Bihar (Now State of Jharkhand) & Others reported in AIR 2007 (SC) 10 that, a counter-claim has necessarily to be directed against the plaintiff in the suit, though incidentally or along with it, it may also claim relief against co-defendants in the suit. But a counter-claim solely against the co-defendants cannot be maintained. By filing a counter-claim, by a defendant against his co-defendant, the litigation cannot be converted into some sort of an inter-pleader suit.

II. In a case between Raju Manoj Shah @ Rajeswari Rasiklal Sheth Vs. Kiranbhai Shakrabhai Patel & Another reported in 2025 (4) Civil.L.J. 869 SC that, counter claim can only be filed by the defendant against the

plaintiff, but not by a defendant against a co- defendant. (Para No.27) III. In a case between Jag Mohan Chawla Vs. Dera Radha Swami Satsang reported in 1996 (4) SCC 699 that, the legislative intent is to avoid multiplicity of proceedings by allowing both the original suit and the counter claim to be tried and disposed of in a single trial, thereby avoiding prolonged and protracted litigation.

          IV.    In a case between Ashok Kumar Kalra Vs.
                 Wing CDR Surendra Agnihotri                reported in
                 2020 (2) SCC 394             that, the purpose of

introducing Rule 6-A in Order 8 of the CPC is to avoid multiplicity of proceedings by driving the parties to file separate suit and see that the dispute between the parties is decided finally in a suit.

12. It is the clarified propositions of law as per the ratio of

the aforesaid decisions that, a counter claim of the

defendant is to be filed against the plaintiff, though,

incidentally or along with the same, the reliefs thereof can be

claimed and decided against his/her co-defendant/co-

defendants. For which, in the counter claim of the defendant,

he/she can claim relief against the plaintiff as well as

his/her co-defendant or co-defendants.

In the partition suit vide C.S. No.61/2014 at hand, in

the counter claim of the defendant No.2, he (defendant

No.2) had prayed for partition of his 8 Annas share from the

suit properties and the said counter claim of the defendant

No.2 was decreed ex parte preliminarily for partition in

favour of the defendant No.2 and against the plaintiff, as the

plaintiff was set ex parte without filing any written statement.

In that counter claim of the defendant No.2 for

partition of the suit properties, no notice was issued to the

defendant No.1, whereas, in the final decree of that counter

claim, notice was issued to the defendant No.1, which

shows that, the defendant No.1 has some interest in the

suit properties as per the indirect admission of the

defendant No.2 through issuance of notice to the defendant

No.1 in the final decree proceedings initiated by him

(defendant No.2).

13. It is very fundamental in law that, in a suit for partition,

the status of all the parties are same and equal being

interchangeable.

On this aspect the propositions of law has already

been clarified in the ratio of the following decisions:

I. In the cases between Shub Karan Bubuna @ Shub Karan Prasad Bubuna Vs. Sita Saran Bubuna & Others & Anjali Deb & Others vs. Jitendra Chandra Deb & Others reported in 7 (2009) SLT 81 & 2016 (I) Civ.L.T. 504 (Tripura) that, in a partition suit, each and every party is both plaintiff and defendant.

II. In a case between A. Krishna Shenoy Vs. Ganga Devi G. & Others reported in 2023 (4) Civ.C.C. 509 (SC) that, in a partition suit--Status of parties--In a suit for partition, every interested party is deemed to be plaintiff. (Para No.8) III. In a case between Premalat S/o. Ramlal Shahu & Another Vs. Chandrakant S/o Gayaprasad Shahu & Another reported in 2012 (2) CCC 307 (Bombay) that, in a suit for partition, every co-owner, whether a plaintiff or defendant, is as good as plaintiff.

IV. In the cases between Sri Booman Vs. Kupammal Achi reported in 1968 (2) MLJ 36 , Siba Prasad Vs. Bhibuti Bhusan reported in AIR 1989 (Cal.) 35 & Valliammal Vs. Rajathimmal & Others reported in 1993 (2) LW 334 that, in a suit for partition-- Status/position of defendant--A defendant in a partition suit, can be considered to be a person suing.

14. When it is held above that, the defendant No.1 has

some interest in the suit properties, in respect of which, the

ex parte decree for partition has been passed in favour of the

defendant No.2 in his counterclaim and no notice was

issued to the defendant No.1 in the counter claim of the

defendant No.2 and the counter claim of the defendant No.2

was decided without issuing any notice to the defendant

No.1 and without giving any opportunity of being heard to

him (defendant No.1) and when as per law, the relief i.e.

partition sought for by the defendant No.2 in his counter

claim against the plaintiff in respect of the suit properties

was also incidentally against the defendant No.1 and when

by the ex parte decree for partition in the counter claim in

favour of the defendant No.2 in respect of the suit

properties, the interest of the defendant No.1 therein has

ultimately been affected, then, at this juncture, it is held

that, the ex parte Judgment & Decree passed in the counter

claim of the defendant No.2 in his favour behind the back of

the defendant No.1 was in violation of the principles of

natural justice.

As per law, the status of the defendant No.1 in respect

of the counter claim of the defendant No.2 for partition was

as good as a plaintiff and virtually the said ex parte decree

in the counter claim of the defendant No.2 is also against

the defendant No.1.

Therefore, in a suit for partition, a defendant can also

file counterclaim solely against his/her co-defendant or co-

defendants.

On this aspect the propositions of law has aleready

been clarified in the ratio of the following decisions:

I. In a case between C. Kasinathan Vs. N. Athiappan Servai & Others reported in 1998 (1) MLJ 137 (Madras) that, CPC, 1908--Order 8, Rule 6A--When as per law, a defendant in a suit for partition can be considered to be a person suing, then, a counter claim can also be made against a defendant by another co- defendant.

In fact, when a counterclaim is made, the person i.e. the defendant who makes such counterclaim becomes the plaintiff in so far as that claim in the counterclaim is concerned and the person against whom such claim is made becomes the defendant.

Sub-clause(2) of Rule 6A of Order 8 of the CPC, 1908 makes it clear that, such counterclaim shall

have the same effect as a cross suit. Even if the plaintiff in the said suit discontinues on the suit itself is stayed or dismissed, still the counterclaim can be proceeded with as contemplated under Order 8, Rule 6D of the CPC.

Therefore, a combined reading of Order 8, Rule 6A(2) with Order 8, Rule 6D of the CPC, 1908 makes it abundantly clear that, the counter claim in a partition suit can be made by a defendant even against the co-defendant.

II. In a case between A. Mohamed Sulaiman & Others Vs. A. Ameena Bivi reported in 2013 (2) CLT 735 (Madras) that, CPC, 1908--Order 8, Rule 6A--Whether in a suit for partition, a defendant can set up counter claim against his/her co-defendant or co- defendants?

Held, it does not specifically bar in filing a counterclaim by one defendant against his co- defendant. Because, in a suit for partition, the parties are being interchangeable and therefore, a defendant therein can be considered to be a person suing.

For which, in a suit for partition, a defendant can file counter claim against the other defendant and defendants, as his status in his counter claim is as a plaintiff. (Para No.18).

III. In a case between A.V. Murugan Vs. K. Maheswari reported in 2020 (1) Civ.C.C. 688 (Madrass) that, defendant can set up a counter claim even in a

partition suit either against plaintiff or other defendants. (Para 18 and 19).

15. It is very fundamental in law that, "when a person has

an interest in the suit properties, the said suit properties

cannot be dealt with behind his back affecting his interest

therein."

On this aspect, the propositions of law has already

been clarified by the Apex Court in the ratio of the following

decision:

In a case between Ch. Surat Singh (Dead) And Ors. vs Manohar Lal And Ors. reported in AIR 1971 SC 240 that, property of a person cannot be dealt with behind his back. (Para No.6)

16. When the defendant No.1 has some interest in the suit

properties, then, at this juncture, in view of the propositions

of law enunciated in the ratio of the aforesaid decision of the

Apex Court, notice in the counter claim of the defendant

No.2 should have been issued to the defendant No.1, but,

no notice was issued to him.

17. When the suit vide C.S. No.61/2014 filed by the

plaintiff was a suit for partition, and when after filing of the

counter claim by the defendant No.2 for partition of his 8

Annas share from the suit properties, the plaintiff did not

prosecute the suit and when in the suit properties, the

defendant No.1 has an interest and when the plaintiff did

not choose to participate in the hearing of the counter claim

of the defendant No.2, then, in such a situation, it was the

duty and obligation of the learned Trial Court to pass an

order for transposition of the defendant No.1 as a plaintiff

in the counter claim of the defendant No.2 for the just

decision of the counter claim of the defendant No.2, but the

learned Trial Court has not done so.

18. The law regarding the duties and obligations, which

were casted upon the learned Trial Court to transpose the

defendant No.1 as a plaintiff in the counter claim of the

defendant No.2 under the above situation, when the plaintiff

did not choose to participate in the counter claim of the

defendant No.2, has already been clarified in the ratio of the

following decision:

In a case between Bhupendra Narayana Sinha, Bahadur Vs. Rajeswar Prosad Bhakat reported in LIX (1931) ILR (Privy Council) Page 80, at Page 91 decided by 3 Judges Bench that, Transposition by Court suo motu-- When

the proforma defendants asked that, a decree should be passed in favour of the plaintiff, the Court had power at any stage of the proceedings to add the proforma defendants as co-plaintiffs with the original plaintiff as per Order 1, Rule 10 of the CPC, 1908. Such a course should always be adopted, where it is necessary for a complete adjudication upon the question involved in the suit in order to avoid multiplicity of proceedings.

19. Here in this matter at hand, when the suit vide C.S.

No.61/2014 of the plaintiff was a suit for partition and when

in the said suit vide C.S. No.61 of 2014, the defendant No.2

had filed counter claim praying for partition of his 8 Annas

share from the suit properties and when after filing of the

counter claim of the defendant No.2, the plaintiff did not

choose to prosecute the suit, for which, the suit of the

plaintiff was dismissed and when the plaintiff also did not

choose to participate in the counter claim of the defendant

No.2 and when the decree for partition was passed in the

counterclaim of the defendant No.2 in respect of the suit

properties without serving notice of the counter claim of the

defendant No.2 on the defendant No.1 and when as per law,

in the counter claim of the defendant No.2 for partition of

the suit properties, the status of the defendant No.1 was as

good as a plaintiff and when the interest of the defendant

No.1 in the suit properties has been dealt with in the

counter claim of the defendant No.2 behind his back and

when the ex parte Judgment and Decree passed in the

counter claim of the defendant No.2 has ultimately affected

the interest of the defendant No.1 in the suit properties and

when as per the discussions and observations made above,

it was the duty of the learned Trial Court to pass an order

for transposition of the defendant No.1 as a plaintiff in the

counter claim of the defendant No.2, because, in absence of

the plaintiff due to the dismissal of his suit, the defendant

No.1 was the real contestant of the defendant No.2 in the

counter claim of the defendant No.2 for partition of the suit

properties and when in the counter claim of the defendant

No.2, he had sought for the relief against the plaintiff and

incidentally against the defendant No.1 also and when there

is no complete bar under law for filing of the counter claim

by the defendant No.2 against his co-defendant No.1 in a

suit for partition and when as per law, in respect of the

counter claim of the defendant No.2, the status of the

defendant No.2 was as good as a plaintiff and the status of

the defendant No.1 in that counter claim of the defendant

No.2 was as good as a contestant-defendant, as the

defendant No.1 has interest in the suit properties, then, at

this juncture, the ex parte Judgment & Decree passed in the

counter claim of the defendant No.2 in his favour without

issuing/serving notice of his counter claim on his

opponent/contestant i.e. on defendant No.1 cannot be

sustainable under law.

For which, the impugned Judgment & Decree passed

by the learned Appellate Court in F.A.O. No.39 of 2018 in

setting aside the Judgment passed in CMA No.40/2018 as

well as setting aside the ex parte Judgment & Decree passed

in the counter claim of the defendant No.2 (petitioner in this

CMP) in the suit vide C.S.No.61 of 2014 cannot be held as

erroneous.

Therefore, the decisions relied by the learned counsel

for the petitioner (defendant No.2) indicated above in Para

No.9 of this Judgment are distinguishable from the facts and

circumstances of this matter at hand.

20. When it is held that, the impugned Judgment dated

24.02.2021 passed in F.A.O No.99/2018 by the learned

District Judge, Bhadrak is not erroneous, then, at this

juncture, the question of interfering with the same through

this CMP filed by the petitioner does not arise.

As such, there is no merit in the CMP filed by the

petitioner (defendant No.2 in the suit). The same must fail.

21. In result, this CMP filed by the petitioner (defendant

No.2 in the suit) is dismissed on contest, but, without cost.

22. As such, this CMP filed by the petitioner (defendant

No.2 in the suit) is disposed of finally.

(ANANDA CHANDRA BEHERA) JUDGE High Court of Orissa, Cuttack The 17.03.2026// Rati Ranjan Nayak Sr. Stenographer