Disposed

Banani Pattanaik v. Ajaya Ketan Rath

Orissa HC9 Sept 2026CMP/1252/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court refused to entertain a complaint seeking quashing of a Civil Court order dismissing an application for a commissioner. As the order was already set aside by the District Court, the trial court was directed to rehear the application.

What did the court decide?

The CMP is disposed of; the trial court is directed to rehear the application under Order 39 Rule 7 CPC within two months.

Banani Pattanaik Vs Ajaya Ketan Rath — Property and Title | Orissa HC (2026)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CMP No. 1252 of 2026 CNR No. ODHC010578602026

¶2

Banani Pattanaik

¶3

..…... Petitioner (s) Mr. Sanatan Dash, Adv.

¶4

-Versus-

¶5

Ajaya Ketan Rath

¶6

.. .…. Opposite Party (s) Mr. Pranab Ranjan Chhatoi, Adv.

¶7

CORAM:

¶8

DR. JUSTICE SANJEEB K PANIGRAHI

ORDER

09.09.2026

Order No.

1. This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement.

¶14

2. By filing the present CMP, the Petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 02.05.2026 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Banki in I.A. No.1 of 2025 (arising out of C.S. No.67 of 2025) under Annexure-1.

¶15

3. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶16

Signature Not Verified

¶17

Digitally Signed Signed by: LITARAM MURMU Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 11-Sep-2026 17:07:12

¶18

4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner had filed I.A. No.01 of 2025 under Order 39 Rule 7 of the C.P.C. seeking appointment of a Commissioner for local inspection of the suit land before the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Banki. However, the said I.A. was dismissed vide order dated 02.05.2026 for non-prosecution. He further submits that the Petitioner had also filed a petition seeking adjournment of the hearing of the

¶19

Page 1 of 2

¶20

said I.A. However, the learned trial court, instead of adjourning the matter, dismissed the petitions filed under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 and Order 39 Rule 7 of the C.P.C.

¶21

5. Learned counsel for the Opposite Party submits that, challenging the order dated 02.05.2026, the Petitioner had preferred F.A.O. No.42 of 2026 before the learned District Judge, Cuttack, which was allowed and the said order was set aside.

¶22

6. In view of the above and considering the submission made by the learned counsel for the parties, this Court finds that the order dated 02.05.2026 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Banki in I.A. No.1 of 2025 was challenged before the learned District Judge, Cuttack in FAO No.42 of 2026 and the same has already been set aside. In such view of the matter, this Court is not inclined to entertain the present CMP. However, the learned trial Court is directed to rehear the application under Order 39 Rule 7 of the CPC after affording opportunity of hearing to both the parties and pass an appropriate order in accordance with law within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order.

¶23

7. Accordingly, the CMP is disposed of.

¶24

( Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi) Judge

¶25

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: LITARAM MURMU Judge Murmu Designation: Personal AssistantReason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 11-Sep-2026 17:07:12

¶26

Page 2 of 2

Banani Pattanaik v. Ajaya Ketan Rath

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Banani Pattanaik v. Ajaya Ketan Rath

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases