Vikas Kumar Saha And Others vs Sunil Kumar Saha And Others
2026 Latest Caselaw 2535 Ori

Orissa High Court

Vikas Kumar Saha And Others vs Sunil Kumar Saha And Others on 17 March, 2026

                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

                                       RSA No.360 of 2023

                    (In the matter of an appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil
              Procedure, 1908)



                   Vikas Kumar Saha and others           ....          Appellants

                                              -versus-
                   Sunil Kumar Saha and others           ....         Respondents

For Appellants - Mr. D. Mohapatra, Sr. Advocate assisted by Mr. M.R. Pradhan, Advocate

For Respondents - Mr. B. Bhuyan, Sr. Advocate assisted by Ms. S. Sahoo, Advocate

CORAM:

MR. JUSTICE A.C.BEHERA Date of Hearing :04.02.2026:: Date of Judgment :17.03.2026

A.C. Behera, J. This 2nd appeal has been preferred against the confirming

judgment.

2. The predecessor of the appellants in this 2nd appeal, i.e., Naresh

Prasad Saha, was the sole plaintiff before the learned trial court in the

suit vide C.S. No.290 of 2005 and after the death of Naresh Prasad Saha

his legal heirs preferred the 1st appeal vide RFA No.16 of 2018 being the

appellants.

// 2 //

The parents of the respondents in this 2nd appeal were the

defendants before the learned trial court in the suit vide C.S. No.290 of

2005 and the respondents before the learned 1st appellate court in the 1st

appeal vide RFA No.16 of 2018. When, during the pendency of the 1st

appeal, the parents of the respondents expired, then, the respondents in

this 2nd appeal were substituted in their places.

3. The properties described in Schedule-A of the plaint, i.e., Plot

Not.257(gharabari, dokan ghara) A.0.16 decimals under Khata No.137 in

Mouza-Baripada Town, Unit-6, Purunahatsahi in the district of

Mayurbhanj are the suit properties.

4. The predecessor of the appellants in this 2nd appeal, i.e., Naresh

Prasad Saha filed a suit vide C.S. No.290 of 2005 being the plaintiff

against the parents of the respondents in this 2nd appeal in the court of the

learned Civil Judge(Sr. Division), Baripada praying for a declaration

that,

"he is the absolute owner of the suit premises described in Schedule-A of the plaint, to restrain the defendants from entering into the suit properties/premises through municipality, to injuct the defendants permanently from coming into the suit premises/properties described in Schedule-A and to pass a decree for recovery of possession of the suit properties, if he(plaintiff) is found to be dispossessed from the suit properties during the pendency of the suit."

// 3 //

As per the averments made in the plaint of the plaintiff, Munilal

Saha was their common ancestor. The said Munilal Saha died leaving

behind his three sons, i.e., Ramdayal Saha, Raghunandan Saha and

Jogeswar Saha.

Ramdayal Saha died leaving behind his six sons, i.e., Sibasankar

Saha, Mangal Saha, Mohesh Saha, Sahadev Saha, Ranjeet Saha and

Susil Saha. The said six sons of Ramdayal Saha were not made parties in

the suit.

The 2nd son of Munilal Saha, i.e., Raghunandan Saha died leaving

behind his only son Hariprasad Saha.

Hariprasad Saha and his wife Shantilata Saha died on dated

05.12.2009 and 29.11.2009 respectively leaving behind the defendant

nos.1(a) and 1(b), 2(a) and 2(b) as their successors.

The 3rd son of Munilal Saha, i.e., Jogeswar Saha died leaving

behind his two sons, i.e., Ganesh Prasad Saha and Naresh Prasad Saha.

Naresh Prasad Saha is the plaintiff in the suit vide C.S. No.290 of 2005.

According to the case of the plaintiff Naresh Prasad Saha, there

was long standing dispute between three sons of Munilal Saha, i.e.,

Ramdayal Saha, Raghunandan Saha and Jogeswar Saha and their

litigation vide Civil Appeal No.1068 of 1999 reached before the Hon'ble

// 4 //

Supreme Court of India. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in that

Civil Appeal No.1068 of 1999 appointed a sole Arbitrator and the said

sole Arbitrator allotted lands and buildings including the business of the

parties, i.e., both the movable and immovable properties with assets and

liabilities thereof between the three sons of Munilal Saha separately.

In that allotment, the market building inside Baripada town fell in

the share of Hariprasad Saha(defendant no.1) and motor parts business,

which was running in that market building fell in the share of the

plaintiff.

On the basis of that settlement/allotment as per the order/direction

of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No.1068 of 1999,

the plaintiff managed the motor parts business situated on suit Plot

No.257 described in Schedule-A of the plaint and paid rent of the same

to the Government and also collected rents from the tenants of the said

market building.

The defendant no.1, i.e., Hariprasad Saha filed a suit vide C.S.

No.393 of 2002 against one tenant of that market building, i.e., against

Narayan Prasad Bhatter praying for declaration and recovery of

possession, but that suit was dismissed on dated 31.10.2007 for the

default of the defendant no.1(Hariprasad Saha).

// 5 //

5. According to the above allotment, the plaintiff had/has been

enjoying the Schedule-A market building for more than 40 years being

the owner of the same, in which, the defendants have no interest and

possession.

6. As per the order of the Tahasildar Baripada, in Mutation Case

No.205 of 2000, the Tahasildar, Baripada recorded suit land in favour of

the defendant no.1(Hariprasad Saha) erroneously on the basis of the

allotment/settlement made by the sole Arbitrator, to which, he(plaintiff)

challenged by filing Mutation Appeal No.32 of 2000 before the Sub-

collector, Baripada alleging that, the Tahasildar, Baripada has passed

such order relying upon fake and false documents.

When on dated 31.05.2005, Baripada Municipality issued notice

to all the tenants of the suit premises including the plaintiff for vacation

of the houses from the same for the purpose of renovation and when, the

plaintiff came to know that, the defendants have managed to issue such

notice to him(plaintiff) and his tenants through Municipality in order to

evict them from the suit premises illegally and when the plaintiff is the

exclusive owner of the suit premises, then, he (plaintiff) approached the

civil court by filing a suit vide C.S. No.290 of 2005 against the

defendants, i.e., against Hariprasad Saha and his wife Shantilata Saha

praying for declaration of his title over the suit premises/properties

// 6 //

described in Schedule-A and to injunct the defendants from entering into

the same through Baripapada Municipality and to recover the possession

of the suit premises from the defendants, if he(plaintiff) is found to be

dispossessed from the suit premises illegally by the defendants during

the pendency of the suit.

7. In the said suit vide C.S. No.290 of 2005, the defendants filed a

petition under Order-7, Rule-11 of the C.P.C. praying for rejection of the

plaint of the plaintiff on the ground that,

when there was previous partition/distribution of their all joint

properties including the Schedule-A suit properties/premises between

them(defendants and plaintiff) along with their other co-sharers as per

the order/direction issued/passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India

in Civil Appeal No.1068 of 1999 and when on the basis of such

allotment/settlement, the suit properties described in Schedule-A had

fallen in the share of the defendant no.1(Hariparasad Saha) and when, as

per such allotment made by the sole Arbitrator, the plaintiff was allotted

only with the motor parts business, which was running by then in the

market building, but, not the land and building thereof and the land and

building thereof was allotted in favour of the defendant no.1(Hariparasad

Saha) and when the award passed in Civil Appeal No.1068 of 1999

between the parties has already been reached in its finality, the said

// 7 //

matter cannot be reopened again through the present suit filed by the

plaintiff long years thereafter and when, the order of the Hon'ble

Supreme Court of India passed in Civil Appeal No.1068 of 1999 has

already been acted upon by the parties, then, the plaintiff is estopped

under law to file the suit vide C.S. No.290 of 2005. For which, the plaint

of the plaintiff in the suit vide C.S. No.290 of 2005 is liable to be

rejected being barred under law. As such, the plaint of the plaintiff in the

suit vide C.S. No.290 of 2005 is vexatious. The same is to be rejected.

8. The plaintiff objected to the aforesaid petition under Order-7, Rule-11 of the C.P.C. of the defendants stating in his objection that, the sole Arbitrator appointed in Civil Appeal No.1068 of 1999 by the order/direction of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India had allotted motor parts business (which was running in the building of the suit premises) in his favour, for which, he(plaintiff) is the owner in both, i.e., suit premises as well as motor parts business,

As the deceased father of the defendants, i.e., Hariparasad Saha managed to mutate the suit premises illegally in his favour, for which, he(plaintiff) challenged the same preferring a mutation appeal.

When, it is the settled propositions of law that, order of mutation as well as RoR do not create or extinguish title, then, the petition under Order-7, Rule-11 of the C.P.C. of the defendants is liable to be rejected.

9. After hearing from both the sides, the learned trial court allowed

to the petition under Order-7, Rule-11 of the C.P.C. of the defendants as

per order dated 28.02.2018 passed in C.S. No.290 of 2005 and rejected

// 8 //

to the plaint of the plaintiff in C.S. No.290 of 2005 assigning the reasons

that,

"the averments made in the plaint of the plaintiff in C.S. No.290 of 2005 are purely illusory. There is no real cause of action in the plaint for filing the same. Because, the suit properties/premises were allotted by the sole Arbitrator as per the order/direction made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No.1068 of 1999 in favour of the defendant no.1, i.e., Hari Prasad Saha. For which, the suit of the plaintiff vide C.S. No.290 of 2005 is barred under law. The plaint thereof is liable to be rejected.

Accordingly, as per order dated 28.02.2018, the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge, Baripada rejected to the plaint of the plaintiff in C.S. No.290 of 2005."

10. On being dissatisfied with the said order of rejection to the plaint

of the plaintiff vide C.S. No.290 of 2005 passed on dated 28.02.2018 by

the learned trial court, the plaintiff challenged the same preferring an

appeal vide RFA No.16 of 2018 being the appellant against the

defendants arraying them(defendants) as respondents.

11. When, during the pendency of the appeal vide RFA No.16 of

2018, the appellant/plaintiff as well as defendants expired, then, their

legal heirs were substituted in their places.

12. After hearing from both the sides, the learned 1st appellate court

dismissed to that 1st appeal vide RFA No.16 of 2018 on dated

// 9 //

30.07.2022 of the plaintiff and confirmed to the order of rejection to the

plaint of the plaintiff vide C.S. No.290 of 2005 passed by the learned

trial court on dated 28.02.2018 assigning the reasons that,

"When, the plaintiff has not taken any step within prescribed time limit to challenge the award/allotment/settlement passed in Civil Appeal No.1068 of 1999 by the sole Arbitrator and when the allotment made by the sole Arbitrator in Civil Appeal No.1068 of 1999 has already been reached in its finality and when basing upon such award, RoR of the suit properties has already been prepared in favour of the defendants as per order passed in Mutation Case No.205 of 2000 and when the prayer no.(i) in the plaint of the plaintiff is purely on the basis of the award passed by the sole Arbitrator in Civil Appeal No.1068 of 1999, then, the real controversies between the parties, i.e., whether the suit properties/premises, on which, the market building exists had fallen in the share of the defendants or plaintiff and when, the appeal of the plaintiff vide Mutation Appeal No.32 of 2000 has already been dismissed by the Sub-Collector, Baripada on dated 17.10.2001 taking the award of the Arbitrator into account and when as per the award/allotment of the Arbitrator, the land and buildings on Schedule-A suit properties were allotted in favour of the defendant no.1, i.e., Hari Prasad Saha and when, such allotment has already been set at rest and when the prayer no.(ii) to (iv) in the plaint of the plaintiff are dependant upon the prayer no.(i) and when prayer no.(i) has already been decided by the sole Arbitrator and the said decision of the sole Arbitrator is binding upon the parties and when the decision of the Arbitrator has remained unchallenged by the parties thereof including the plaintiff, then, at this stage, if the suit of the plaintiff vide C.S. No.290 of 2005 will be allowed to proceed, then, it will be a re-visit to the arbitral award by the civil

// 10 //

court. For which, civil court has no jurisdiction to deal with the matter and the same will not bring an end to the litigation and the aim and object of the law shall be frustrated.

Therefore, it is held by the trial court that, the averments made in the plaint of the plaintiff are illusory and the same does not provide cause of action for filing the suit. Therefore, the impugned order passed on dated 28.02.2018 by the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge, Baripada in C.S. No.290 of 2005 for the rejection of the plaint is not required to be interfered with."

13. On being aggrieved with the aforesaid dismissal of the appeal vide

RFA No.16 of 2018 of the plaintiff/appellant, the successors of the

plaintiff challenged the same preferring this 2nd appeal being the

appellants against the defendants arraying the successors of the

defendants as respondents.

14. This 2nd appeal was admitted on formulation of the following

substantial questions of law, i.e.,:-

(i) Whether the learned trial court is justified in rejecting the plaint on the plea of the existing award particularly when the suit is in respect of protection of the property fell into the share of the plaintiff pursuant to the said award and subsequent attempt to frustrate the award constituting the cause of action to file the suit?

(ii) Whether the plaint could have been rejected on the plea of limitation, cause of action and res judicata which involves determination on mixed question of

// 11 //

fact and law and accordingly, warranting adjudication of the suit on merit inter alia with other issues?

(iii) Whether the learned courts below justified in rejecting the plaint on the ground of limitation counting the same on and from the date of award while the suit prayer involved subsequent event to deprive the plaintiff to protect his property fell into the share of the plaintiff by virtue of the said award?

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

appellants(plaintiffs) and the learned counsel for the respondents

(defendants).

16. In support of the impugned order and judgment for rejection of the

plaint, the learned counsel for the respondents(defendants) relied upon

the following decision :-

(i) In a case between T. Arivandandam vrs. T.V.

Satyapal and another : reported in (1977) 4 SCC-467

17. When, the aforesaid three formulated substantial questions of law

are inter-linked relating to the matter, i.e., rejection of plaint of the

appellant/plaintiff in the suit vide C.S. No.290 of 2005 under Order-7,

Rule-11 of the C.P.C., then all the above three formulated substantial

questions of law are taken up together analogously for their discussions

hereunder:-

// 12 //

18. As, this 2nd appeal has been preferred challenging the rejection of

the plaint of the plaintiff/appellant in C.S. No.290 of 2005, for which,

this 2nd appeal is not enjoined to be decided on merits of controversies

between the parties.

For which, in this 2nd appeal, the formulated substantial questions

of law shall be answered confining its examinations only to the validity

of the impugned order of the learned trial court as well as the judgment

of the learned appellate court in respect of the petition under Order-7,

Rule-11 of the C.P.C. of the defendants. So, the scope of this 2nd appeal

shall be confined to the above purpose, but, not beyond that.

19. On this aspect, the propositions of law has already been clarified

by the Apex court in the ratio of the following decision:-

(i) In a case between Sri Srikanth NS and others vrs. K. Munivenkatappa and another : reported in 2025(3) CCC(S.C.)-

01 that,

Any appeal against the rejection of plaint, the appellate court is not enjoined to decide merits of the controversies. The appellate court shall only examine the validity of order of the trial court in rejecting the plaint. For the said purpose, the appellate court will see only to the averments in the plaint and nothing beyond.

So, this 2nd appellate court shall answer to the aforesaid

formulated substantial questions of law only referring to the averments

made in the plaint of the plaintiff, but, nothing beyond that.

// 13 //

20. Naresh Prasad Saha(father of the appellants) was the sole plaintiff

before the learned trial court in the suit vide C.S. No.290 of 2005.

After the death of the sole plaintiff, his legal heirs have been

substituted in his place and they have adopted to the plaint of the

plaintiff Naresh Prasad Saha.

21. In para nos.2, 3, 4, 4(a), 5 and 6 of the plaint of the plaintiff, it has

been specifically stated that,

"there was long standing dispute between his co-sharers, for which, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.1068 of 1999 appointed sole Arbitrator and the said sole Arbitrator by way of award settled/allotted lands, buildings and business in respect of both movable and immovable properties with assets and liabilities between the co-sharers.

As per such allotment/settlement made by the sole Arbitrator, the market building fell in the share of Hari Prasad Saha, predecessor of the defendants and motor parts business, which was running in that market building on suit Plot No.257 fell in the share of the father of the plaintiff.

On the basis of the said allotment, the plaintiff managed and controlled the motor parts business on suit Plot No.257. The suit Plot No.257 has been mutated in favour of the defendants on the basis of the award passed in Civil Appeal No.1068 of 1999 by the Tahasildar, Baripada in Mutation Case No.205 of 2000, to which, they(plaintiffs) have challenged by filing mutation Appeal No.32 of 2000 before the Sub-collector, Baripada.

// 14 //

The principal prayer of the plaintiff in the suit is to declare him(plaintiff) as the absolute owner of the suit premises vide Plot No.257 of Schedule-A properties."

22. On the basis of the aforesaid averments made in the plaint of the

plaintiff, it is his own case of the plaintiff that, in the award passed by

the sole Arbitrator on being appointed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in

Civil Appeal No.1068 of 1999, the market building situated on

Schedule-A land, i.e., on Plot No.257 had fallen in the share of

Hariprasad Saha(defendant no.1) and the motor parts business(which

was running in the said Plot No.257) had fallen in the share of the father

of the plaintiff, i.e., Jogeswar Saha. The suit Plot No.257 has already

been mutated in favour of the defendants on the basis of the award

passed by the sole Arbitrator.

23. Now, the questions arise, when the land and buildings situated on

the suit Plot No.257 described in Schedule-A was allotted in favour of

the defendant no.1 in the award passed by the sole Arbitrator on being

appointed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.1068 of 1999

and when the motor parts business(which was running in the suit plot)

was allotted in favour of the plaintiff, then at this juncture,

it will be seen, as per law, who is the owner of the land and

building situated on suit Plot No.257 described in Schedule-A.

// 15 //

The land and building was allotted in favour of the defendant no.1

and the motor parts business running in the same was allotted in favour

of the plaintiff. The suit of the plaintiff is for declaration of title over the

suit properties described in Schedule-A on the basis of the allotment of

motor parts business in favour of the plaintiff.

24. It is very fundamental in law that,

a business or trade, which is a growing concern, is movable property, even though, the business may be conducted at a fixed place.

So, business is a movable property, but, a building or land is immovable property under the property law. Any business and ownership thereof can be transferred through sale of good will, shares, or partnership interest often without transferring any immovable property.

As per Section 3 of the T.P Act, 1882, a business does not fall under the definition of immovable property. It is neither land nor a benefit arising directly out of the land.

Therefore, as per Section 3 of the T.P. Act, 1882, a business is a movable property.

As per Section 3(36) of the general clause Act, 1897, the business is excluded from the definition of immovable property, which naturally falls within the scope of movable property.

25. When, it is the own case of the plaintiff in his plaint that, as per

the allotment made by the sole Arbitrator on being appointed by the

// 16 //

Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No.1068 of 1999, the

land and building on Plot No.257 described in Schedule-A was allotted

in favour of the defendant no.1 and the motor parts business(which was

running in plot situated in Plot No.257) was allotted in favour of the

plaintiff and when, in view of the above definition of the business

according to Section 3 of the T.P. Act, 1882 and Section 3(36) of the

General Clauses Act, 1897, a business is not an immovable property, but,

land and building are immovable property under property law and a

business is movable property, even though, the same may be conducted

at a fixed place, then at this juncture, on the basis of the above allotment

made by the sole Arbitrator in Civil Appeal No.1068 of 1999, the

defendants are the owners of the suit properties/premises, even though,

the motor parts business(which was running in the suit premises) was

allotted in favour of the plaintiff, the plaintiff is not the owner of the land

and building described in Schedule-A of the plaint.

26. The whole purpose of conferring the powers under Order-7, Rule-

11 of the C.P.C. for rejection of a plaint is that, a litigation, which is

meaningless and abortive, the same should not be permitted to occupy

the time of the court exercising the mind of the defendant or defendants.

Because, the sword of damocles need not be kept hanging over the

head of the defendant or defendants unnecessarily without point or

// 17 //

purpose in any civil litigation. So, the court readily exercise its power to

reject a plaint.

Therefore, no meaningless litigation should be permitted to

proceed, so that, time of judiciary shall not be wasted unnecessarily. For

which, the ends of justice shall bestly be served, if there will be an end to

the sham litigation. So, the power of court to reject the plaint is drastic.

27. On this aspect, the propositions of law has already been clarified

in the ratio of the following decisions:-

(i) In a case between Kumari Geetha and others vrs.

Nanundaswamy and others : reported in 2024(2) Civil Law Judgments-691(S.C.) that,

The principle underlying behind the Order-7, Rule-11 of the C.P.C. for rejection of the plaint is that, no meaningless litigation be permitted to proceed. So that, time of judiciary be not washed. It is necessary for the ends of justice that, there should be an end of sham litigation. Power of court rejecting of plaint is drastic.

(ii) In a case between Azhar Hussain vrs. Rajib Gandhi :

reported in 1986(Suppl.) SCC- 315(Para-12) that,

The whole purpose of conferment of powers to the court under Order-7, Rule-11 of the C.P.C. for rejection of plaint is to ensure that, a litigation, which is meaningless and abortive should not be permitted to occupy the time of the court and exercise the mind of the respondent. The sword of damocles need not be kept hanging over his head unnecessarily without point or purpose.

(iii) In a case between Dahiben vrs. Arvindabhai Kalyanji Bhanusali(Gajra) dead through Legal Representatives and

// 18 //

others : reported in (2020) 7 SCC-366 and 2021(1) Civil Court Cases-210(S.C.) that, that,

If, however, on a meaningful reading of the plaint, it is found that, the suit does not disclose right to sue, cause of action or suit is barred by any law, in that case, the court has no option but to reject the plaint, as the provisions of Order-7, Rule-11 of the C.P.C. is mandatory in nature in view of the expression "shall"

appearing therein.

(iv) In a case between Bhargavi Constructions and another vrs. Kothakapu Muthyam Reddy and others : reported in AIR 2017 (S.C.)-4428 or (2017) 3 SCC-474 that,

For rejection of plaint, law means, judge made law, but, not only the legislative enactment. For which, plaint shall be rejected not only through legislative enactment, but also through judicial decision of the Supreme Court given under Article-141 of the Constitution of India, 1950.

Law means, judgment made law by High Court and Supreme Court in respect of Order-7, Rule-11 (d) of the C.P.C.

(v) In a case between Sadhu Ram(since deceased) through his LRs. and others vrs. State of Haryana through Collector :

reported in 2025(4) Civil Law Judgments-370(P&H) that,

When, the matter has already been reached in its finality, the same cannot be re-adjudicated through any suit or proceeding.

(vi) In a case between Vinod Kumar Singh and others vrs.

Devraj Singh and others : reported in 2015(3) CCC-463 (Delhi) that,

When, an issue is decided in a suit between same parties involving same subject matter, the same cannot be raised in subsequent suit.

// 19 //

(vii) In a case between Laxmi Housing Udyog Pvt. Ltd. vrs. Sharad Subramanyan and others : reported in 2016(2) CCC- 188(Callcutta) that,

When, the same matter has already been decided between the same parties, the plaint in the subsequent suit between the same party will be liable to be rejected.

(viii) In a case between T. Arivandandam vrs. T.V. Satyapal and another : reported in AIR 1977 S.C.-2421 that, where on reading of the plaint, it is manifestly vexatious and meritless in the sense of not disclosing a clear right to sue, the court should exercise its power under Order-7, Rule-11 of the C.P.C.. If a clever drafting has created the illusion of a cause of action, the court must nip it in the bud.

28. When, it is the settled propositions of law in view of the decision

of the Apex court between Vinod Infra Developer Ltd. vrs. Mahavir

Lunia and others : reported in 2025 INSC-772 that,

at the stage of consideration of the petition under Order-7, Rule-11

of the C.P.C. for rejection of the plaint, the court is required to confine

its examination strictly to the averments made in the plaint of the

plaintiff and not to venture into the merits and veracity of claims and

when as per the averments made in the plaint of the plaintiff, he

(plaintiff) has prayed for declaration of his ownership over the buildings

situated on suit Plot No.257 described in Schedule-A of the plaint on the

basis of the allotment made by the sole Arbitrator according to the

direction/order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal

// 20 //

No.1068 of 1999 and when in that allotment, the allotment of the suit

properties/premises in favour of the defendants has already been reached

in its finality without being challenged/questioned by the plaintiff, then

at this juncture, by applying the principles of law enunciated in the ratio

of the aforesaid decisions to the plaint of the plaintiff in C.S. No.290 of

2005, it is held that, the plaint of the plaintiff in C.S. No.290 of 2005 is

barred under law.

Therefore, the rejection to the plaint of the plaintiff vide C.S.

No.290 of 2005 passed on dated 28.02.2018 by the learned Additional

Senior Civil Judge, Baripada and confirmation to the same by the

learned 1st appellate court in RFA No.16 of 2018 cannot be held as

erroneous.

29. For which, the question of interfering with the same through this

2nd appeal filed by the appellant/plaintiff does not arise.

30. Therefore, there is no merit in this 2nd appeal filed by the

appellants/plaintiff. The same is liable to be dismissed.

31. In result, the 2nd appeal filed by the appellant/plaintiff is dismissed

on contest, but, without cost.

                                                                               (A.C. Behera),

Designation: Personal Assistant                                                   Judge

Reason: Authentication Orissa High Court, Cuttack Location: OHC, CUTTACK The 17th of March, 2026/ Jagabandhu, P.A. Date: 18-Mar-2026 17:56:03