Allowed

Sneha Manjari Dehury v. Collctor, Deogarh

Orissa HC10 Sept 2026CMP/1241/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this C.M.P., the High Court examined a challenge to a trial court's rejection of fragmented settlement records. Relying on Supreme Court precedent, the court held that public documents with a clear nexus to the suit must be admitted despite delay. The impugned order was set aside, and the trial court was directed to admit the documents.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 08.12.2025 set aside; direction issued to trial court to receive documents on record.

Sneha Manjari Dehury Vs Collctor, Deogarh — Property and Title | Orissa HC (2026)

¶1

Signature Not Verified

¶2

Digitally Signed Signed by: SIPUN BEHERA Designation: Senior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 10-Sep-2026 17:24:50

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶4

C.M.P No.1241 of 2026

¶5

[CNR No.ODHC010489242026]

¶6

Sneha Manjari Dehury & Ors.

¶7

…. Petitioner(s)

¶8

Mr. Prasanta Kumar Satapathy, Adv. -versus-

¶9

Collector, Deogarh & Ors.

¶10

…. Opposite Party(s)

¶11

Ms. Gayatri Patra, ASC

¶12

CORAM:

¶13

HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE SANJEEB K PANIGRAHI

¶14

ORDER

¶15

Order No. 10.09.2026

¶16

01.

¶17

1. This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement.

¶18

2. By filing the present CMP, the Petitioners, who are the plaintiffs before the learned trial Court, have assailed the legality and propriety of the order dated 08.12.2025 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Deogarh in C.S. No.05 of 2016, whereby their application seeking acceptance of certain documents and marking of the same as exhibits has been rejected.

¶19

3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order as well as the materials placed on record.

¶20

4. Learned counsel for the Petitioners submits that the Petitioners, as plaintiffs, have instituted the aforesaid civil suit

¶21

Page 1 of 5

¶22

Signature Not Verified

¶23

Digitally Signed Signed by: SIPUN BEHERA Designation: Senior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 10-Sep-2026 17:24:50

¶24

seeking declaration of their right, title and interest in respect of MS Khata No.84, Plot Nos.624 and 669 of Mouza-Deogarh, Unit-V and Khata No.86, Plot Nos.598, 599, 600, 605, 606, 628 and 670, along with confirmation of possession.

¶25

5. Learned counsel further submits that the documents sought to be produced relate to the settlement records, named, the Yadast/Amin Yadast and Munsarim Mistake List, pertaining to the suit property and the basis of preparation of the settlement Record-of-Rights. According to him, the said documents are relevant and necessary for proper adjudication of the dispute involved in the suit.

¶26

6. It is further contended that the delay in production of the documents, by itself, cannot be a ground for rejecting the prayer when the documents have a direct nexus with the issues involved in the suit. Learned counsel submits that the pleadings already disclose the challenge of the plaintiffs regarding the correctness of the settlement Record-of-Rights as well as their claim of possession over the suit land. The Amin Yadast and Munsarim Mistake List, according to him, would have a bearing upon the possession of the parties and the preparation of the settlement Record-of-Rights.

¶27

7. Learned counsel for the Petitioners also submits that the documents in question were prepared during the settlement operation by the public authorities and are public documents. The same relate to the preparation of the settlement Record-

¶28

Page 2 of 5

¶29

Signature Not Verified

¶30

Digitally Signed Signed by: SIPUN BEHERA Designation: Senior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 10-Sep-2026 17:24:50

¶31

of-Rights and Sabak-Hal comparison in respect of the suit property. It is submitted that the documents would assist the Court in determining the controversy relating to possession and the settlement records. Since there is specific pleading regarding the possession of the plaintiffs over the suit land since 1948, the documents sought to be produced are relevant and have sufficient nexus with the subject matter of the suit. Learned counsel, therefore, prays for setting aside the impugned order and for a direction to the learned trial Court to receive the documents on record.

¶32

8. Learned counsel appearing for the State, on the other hand, opposes the prayer and submits that the documents sought to be introduced were in existence and available in the Settlement Office, Sambalpur and could have been obtained by the Petitioners by exercising ordinary diligence at the time of filing of the suit. It is further submitted that the documents sought to be produced are not relevant for adjudication of the dispute and, therefore, the learned trial Court has rightly rejected the prayer.

¶33

9. In Billa Jagan Mohan Reddy & Anr. v. Billa Sanjeeva Reddy & Ors.¹ , the Hon’ble Supreme Court, while considering the belated production of public documents, held that where the documents are relevant for deciding the real controversy between the parties, delay in production thereof

¶34

1 (1994) 4 SCC 659

¶35

Page 3 of 5

¶36

Signature Not Verified

¶37

Digitally Signed Signed by: SIPUN BEHERA Designation: Senior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 10-Sep-2026 17:24:50

¶38

should not, by itself, stand in the way of receiving such documents. The Hon’ble Supreme Court further observed that the documents may be received, giving an opportunity to the parties to prove the same and, if necessary, to the opposite party to rebut the same and thereafter the effect and relevance of such documents may be considered while deciding the issues involved in the proceeding.

¶39

10. In the present case, the documents sought to be produced are stated to relate to the settlement operation concerning the suit property, including the Amin Yadast and Munsarim Mistake List. The pleadings of the plaintiffs disclose a dispute with regard to the settlement Record-of-Rights as well as their claim of possession over the suit land. Therefore, at this stage, it cannot be said that the documents sought to be produced have no relevance or nexus whatsoever with the controversy involved in the suit.

¶40

11. In the facts and circumstances of the present case and having regard to the nature of the documents sought to be produced, the pleadings of the parties and the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Billa Jagan Mohan Reddy (supra) , this Court is of the considered view that the interest of justice would be better served by permitting the documents to be brought on record, rather than shutting out the same merely on the ground of delay.

¶41

Page 4 of 5

¶42

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SIPUN BEHERA Designation: Senior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 10-Sep-2026 17:24:50

¶43

12. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 08.12.2025 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Deogarh in C.S. No.05 of 2016 is set aside.

¶44

13. The learned trial Court is directed to receive the documents sought to be produced by the Petitioners on record and permit the Petitioners to tender the same in evidence, subject to proof and admissibility in accordance with law.

¶45

14. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the genuineness, admissibility, proof or evidentiary value of the documents in question. The learned trial Court shall consider the same independently and in accordance with law while adjudicating the suit.

¶46

15. The CMP is accordingly allowed.

¶47

16. Issue urgent certified copy of this order as per Rules.

¶48

(Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi) Judge

¶49

Sipun

¶50

Page 5 of 5

Sneha Manjari Dehury v. Collctor, Deogarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sneha Manjari Dehury v. Collctor, Deogarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases