Santosh Kumar Agarwal v. Nanda Kishore Pradhan

Orissa HC5 Mar 2026CMP/250/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Article 227 Constitution of India; CMP; Orissa High Court; Justice Aditya Kumar Mohapatra; order dated 05.03.2026; certified copy of judgment dated 12.04.1996 in T.S. No.228 of 1993; record sent for digitization; trial court order 27.12.2025 rejected prayer observing it is not the collecting agent of the parties; Registrar, District Judge Court, Jajpur Town, Jajpur directed to provide judgment copy within two weeks on production of copy of order; CMP stands disposed of; C.S. No.412 of 2010 Civil Judge (Senior Division) Chandikhole.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the learned Registrar, District Judge Court, Jajpur Town, Jajpur to provide a copy of the judgment dated 12.04.1996 passed in T.S. No.228 of 1993 to the Petitioner within two weeks, on production of a copy of this order. ¶¶26

Santosh Kumar Agarwal Vs Nanda Kishore Pradhan — Writ and Judicial Review | Orissa HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶¶26

Issue for consideration

Whether the Petitioner (Defendant No.1 in C.S. No.412 of 2010 pending before the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Chandikhole) could obtain the judgment dated 12.04.1996 passed in T.S. No.228 of 1993 — a relevant document required to decide the outcome of the present suit — by way of a direction to the trial court to call for it. +1 more

¶¶17

Court's answer

This Court disposed of the CMP by directing the learned Registrar, District Judge Court, Jajpur Town, Jajpur to provide a copy of the judgment dated 12.04.1996 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Jajpur in T.S. No.228 of 1993 to the Petitioner within two weeks, on production of a copy of this order.

¶¶25

Ratio / Principle

On scrutiny of the factual background and the impugned order dated 27.12.2025, this Court recorded that the certified copy of the judgment dated 12.04.1996 in T.S. No.228 of 1993 had not been provided to the Petitioner on the ground that the record had been sent for digitization, and that the trial court had rejected the application with the observation that it is not the collecting agent of the parties; on that basis it routed the request directly to the Registrar rather than through the trial court.

¶¶24

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Orissa at Cuttack — CMP No.250 of 2026 (Aditya Kumar Mohapatra, J.; order dated 05.03.2026). Filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by the Petitioner, Defendant No.1 in C.S. No.412 of 2010 pending before the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Chandikhole, after the trial court's order dated 27.12.2025 (Annexure-4) rejected his application praying that the Registrar, District Judge Court, Jajpur Town, Jajpur be directed to call for the judgment dated 12.04.1996 in T.S. No.228 of 1993 — a suit by vendor/Defendant No.2 and his mother, disposed on 12.04.1996 — whose certified copy stood misplaced, whose record had been sent for digitization, and whose copy applied for on 30.07.2025 (Annexure-2 series) had not been furnished; the trial court had observed that it is not the collecting agent of the parties. This Court disposed of the CMP by directing the Registrar, District Judge Court, Jajpur Town, Jajpur to provide a copy of the judgment dated 12.04.1996 passed in T.S. No.228 of 1993 to the Petitioner within two weeks, on production of a copy of this order.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

CMP No.250 of 2026

¶3

Santosh Kumar Agarawal

¶4

.....

¶5

Petitioners

¶6

Represented by Adv. – Mr. Bibhuti Bhusan Mishra

¶7

-versus-

¶8

Nanda Kishore Pradhan and others

¶9

.....

¶10

Opposite Parties

¶11

CORAM:

¶12

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA ORDER 05.03.2026

¶13

Order No.

¶14

¶15

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

¶16

Heard the learned counsel for the Petitioner. Perused the CMP application as well as the prayer made therein.

¶17

By filing the present CMP application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the Defendant No.1 in C.S. No.412 of 2010 pending in the court of learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Chandikhole has approached this Court with a prayer for a direction to the learned trial court to call for the judgment and decree passed in T.S. No.228 of 1993 by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Jajpur. Such application having been rejected by the learned trial court vide its order dated 27.12.2025 at Annexure-4, the Petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present CMP application.

¶18

Learned counsel for the Petitioner, at the outset, contended that earlier T.S. No.228 of 1993 was filed by vendor/Defendant No.2 and his mother for declaration of his right, title and interest over the suit scheduled land. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further contended

¶19

Page 1 of 3.

¶20

that such suit was disposed of vide judgment dated 12.04.1996. The certified copy of the judgment dated 12.04.1996 has been misplaced. Therefore, the same could not be filed in the present suit. He further submitted that since the judgment in T.S. No.228 of 1993 is a relevant document and the same is required to be considered for deciding outcome of the present suit, the Petitioner applied for the certified copy of the judgment dated 12.04.1996. In support of such contention, he referred to a copy of the application dated 30.07.2025 at Annexure-2 series, which has been submitted before the learned Registrar, District Judge Court, Jajpur Town, Jajpur. He further submitted that till date, the certified copy of judgment dated 12.04.1996 has not been provided to the Petitioner.

¶21

In the aforesaid circumstances, the Petitioner moved an application before the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Chandikhole in C.S. No.412 of 2010 with a prayer for a direction to the Registrar, District Judge Court, Jajpur Town, Jajpur to call for a copy of the judgment dated 12.04.1996. Further, referring to the impugned order dated 27.12.2025 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Chandikhole under Annexure-4, learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that the case record in T.S. No.228 of 1993 has been sent for digitization. Thus, the record of the above noted suit is not available with the Registrar, District Judge Court, Jajpur Town, Jajpur to grant a copy of the judgment dated 12.04.1996 to the Petitioner. He further submitted that the Petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 27.12.2025 passed by the learned trial court thereby rejecting his prayer to provide a copy of the judgment dated 12.04.1996. Accordingly, he has approached this Court by filing the present CMP application.

¶22

On a careful analysis of the factual background of the present case, further on a close scrutiny of the order dated 27.12.2025 as well as

¶23

Page 2 of 3.

¶24

keeping in view the submission made by the learned counsel for the Petitioner, this Court found that the Petitioner wants to file a copy of the judgment dated 12.04.1996 passed in T.S. No.228 of 1993 in the present suit in support of his contention and to rely upon the same as a piece of evidence. However, certified copy of such judgment is misplaced. Although the Petitioner has applied for a certified copy, however, he has not been provided the certified copy of the judgment dated 12.04.1996 passed in T.S. No.228 of 1993 on the ground that the record has been sent for digitization. Accordingly, an application was moved before the learned trial court to call for the record. However, such application has been rejected by the learned trial court with the observation that the learned trial court is not the collecting agent of the parties.

¶25

On careful of analysis of the factual background of the present case and upon a close scrutiny of the impugned order dated 27.12.2025, this Court is of the view that the present CMP application can very well be disposed of by directing the learned Registrar, District Judge Court, Jajpur Town, Jajpur to provide a copy of the judgment dated 12.04.1996 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Jajpur in T.S. No.228 of 1993 to the Petitioner within two weeks, on production of a copy of this order.

¶26

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

¶27

(Aditya Kumar Mohapatra )

¶28

Judge

¶29

Signature Not Verified

¶30

Digitally Signed Debasis Signed by: DEBASIS AECH Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT Date: 06-Mar-2026 18:59:33

¶31

Page 3 of 3.

Santosh Kumar Agarwal v. Nanda Kishore Pradhan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Santosh Kumar Agarwal v. Nanda Kishore Pradhan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mangulu Kujur Vs State of Odisha

Jatindranath Palei Vs State of Odisha

Dr. Manoranjan Panda Vs Ms. Aswathy S., IAS

State of Orissa Vs Naba Krishna Mishra

Sadananda Pati Vs State of Odisha

Geetarani Dash @ Dixit Vs State of Odisha