Disposed¶26

Kamal Kumar Jena v. Gouranga Swain

Orissa HC12 Jan 2026CMP/326/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Keywords: CMP No.326 of 2025; High Court of Orissa at Cuttack; Justice Aditya Kumar Mohapatra; Article 227 Constitution of India; Order 9 Rule 13; ex-parte decree; setting aside ex-parte decree; exhibition of documents; marking documents as exhibits; taking documents into evidence; CMA No.123 of 2017; C.S No.204 of 1997; suit of partition; 1st Additional Senior Civil Judge, Balasore; Kamal Kumar Jena v. Gouranga Swain & Ors.; order dated 17.12.2024; disposal with directions dated 12.01.2026.

What did the court decide?

Application disposed of; impugned rejection upheld as involving no illegality; trial court directed to dispose of the pending CMA expeditiously (preferably within three months) with cooperation of parties' counsel; conditional liberty granted to the Petitioner to file the documents if the ex-parte decree is set aside and the suit reopened.

Kamal Kumar Jena Vs Gouranga Swain — Writ and Judicial Review | Orissa HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶26

Issue for consideration

Whether the learned trial court committed an illegality in rejecting the Petitioner's petition to exhibit certain documents (take them into evidence and mark them as exhibits) while the suit stands decreed ex-parte and only the CMA application for setting aside the ex-parte decree remains pending.

¶22

Court's answer

Since the suit has already been decreed ex-parte, no original proceeding is pending before the learned trial court, and therefore the trial court could not have taken the Petitioner's documents into evidence at this stage.

¶22

Ratio / Principle

The learned trial court committed no illegality in rejecting, by order dated 17.12.2024, the petition filed by the Petitioner to exhibit the documents; the impugned order is thereby upheld.

¶22

Key takeaways

The learned trial court is directed to consider and dispose of the pending CMA application as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of three months from the date of communication of a copy of this order by the Petitioner.ratio¶22
Learned counsels appearing for the respective parties are directed to cooperate with the learned trial court for an early conclusion of the CMA application.ratio¶22
Liberty is granted to the Petitioner to file such documents before the learned trial court if the trial court concludes that the decree passed ex-parte is liable to be set aside and the suit is to be reopened for further final adjudication, in which event the trial court shall proceed accordingly.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Article 227 application (CMP No.326 of 2025, High Court of Orissa at Cuttack, Justice Aditya Kumar Mohapatra, order dated 12.01.2026) by Kamal Kumar Jena challenging order dated 17.12.2024 of the learned 1st Additional Senior Civil Judge, Balasore, rejecting his prayer to exhibit certain documents (take them into evidence and mark them as exhibits) in pending CMA No.123 of 2017, filed to set aside an ex-parte decree in partition suit C.S No.204 of 1997 instituted by Gouranga Swain (Opposite Party No.5) as plaintiff. Holding: since the suit already stands decreed ex-parte, no original proceeding is pending before the trial court, which therefore could not have taken the documents into evidence at that stage; the trial court committed no illegality in rejecting the prayer. The application stands disposed of with directions to conclude the pending CMA expeditiously, preferably within three months of communication of the order, parties' counsel to cooperate, and conditional liberty to the Petitioner to file the documents afresh if the decree is set aside and the suit reopened for adjudication.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CMP No.326 of 2025

¶2

Kamal Kumar Jena

¶3

..... Petitioner

¶4

Represented by Adv. - J.k.mishra 2

¶5

-versus-

¶6

Gouranga Swain & Ors. ..... Opposite Parties

¶7

Represented by Adv. - M/s Bhaskar Chandra Panda, J. N. Panda, A. Tripathy, A. Mishra

¶8

CORAM:

¶9

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA

¶10

ORDER 12.01.2026

¶11

Order No.

¶12

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

¶13

Heard J.K. Mishra 2, learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as Mr.B.C.Panda, learned counsel for the Opposite Parties. Perused the application as well as the prayer made therein.

¶14

The present application has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to challenge order dated 17.12.2024 passed by the learned 1^st Additional Senior Civil Judge, Balasore thereby rejecting a petition filed by the Petitioner to exhibit certain documents in a pending CMA application.

¶15

Learned counsel for the Petitioner at the outset contended that the Opposite Party No.5 as plaintiff filed a suit of partition which was registered as C.S No.204 of 1997. In the aforesaid suit,

¶16

Page 1 of 4.

¶17

the present Petitioner was set ex-parte and an ex-parte decree was passed. Thereafter, the Petitioner has filed CMA No.123 of 2017 for setting aside the ex-parte decree which is stated to be pending before the learned 1^st Additional Senior Civil Judge, Balasore. During the pendency of the aforesaid CMA application, the Petitioner filed certain documents with a prayer to take into evidence such documents and to mark them as exhibits. The same was objected to by the Opposite Party No.5-plaintiff.

¶18

The learned Trial Court vide the impugned order dated 17.12.2024 after discussing the facts has finally come to a conclusion that the documents sought to be introduced as evidence and to be marked as exhibits have no nexus with the ground taken in the CMA application for restoration of the suit which was decreed ex-parte. As such, the learned trial court has rejected the prayer of the Petitioner to exhibit the documents as has been prayed for by the Petitioner. Being aggrieved by such order, the Petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present application.

¶19

Mr.Panda, learned counsel appearing for the Opposite Party No.5-plaintiff on the other hand contended that once the suit has been decreed ex-parte, there is no scope to introduce any documents in the suit. He further submitted that although the Petitioner has filed a CMA with a prayer for setting aside the exparte decree, however, the question involved in such proceeding is as to whether the notice was duly served on the Petitioner or not. The documents which are sought to be introduced as evidence and marked as exhibits have no nexus with the issue involved in CMA application. In such view of the matter, learned counsel appearing for the Opposite Party No.5 contended that the learned trial court

¶20

Page 2 of 4.

¶21

has not committed any illegality in rejecting the prayer of the Petitioner vide order dated 17.12.2024. Hence, it was prayed that the present writ application, being devoid of merit, is liable to be dismissed with cost.

¶22

Having regard to the submissions made by learned counsels appearing for the parties, on a careful analysis of the background facts as well as the impugned order dated 17.12.2024, this Court observes that it is not disputed that the suit has been decreed exparte. Accordingly, the Petitioner has filed a CMA application under Order 9 Rule 13 which is still pending for final adjudication. In the meantime, the Petitioner filed an application along with certain documents and with a prayer to take such documents into evidence and to mark them as exhibits. Since the suit has already been decreed ex-parte, no original proceeding is pending before the learned trial court. Therefore, the learned trial court could not have taken such documents into evidence at this stage. Thus, this Court is of the considered view that the learned trial court has not committed any illegality by passing order dated 17.12.2024 thereby rejecting the petition filed by the Petitioner. However, while disposing of the present application, this Court directs that the learned trial court shall do well to consider and dispose of the same pending CMA application as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of three months from the date of communication of a copy of today’s order by the Petitioner. Learned counsels appearing for the respective parties are directed to cooperate with the learned trial court for an early conclusion of the CMA application. Further, liberty is granted to the Petitioner to file such documents before the learned trial court, in the event the learned

¶23

Page 3 of 4.

¶24

Anil

¶25

trial court comes to conclusion that the decree which was passed ex-parte is liable to be set aside and the suit is to be reopened for further final adjudication, then the learned trial court shall proceed accordingly.

¶26

With the aforesaid observations/ directions, the application stands disposed of.

¶27

Issue urgent certified copy of this order as per Rules.

¶28

( A.K. Mohapatra ) Judge

¶29

Signature Not Verified Page 4 of 4.

¶30

Digitally Signed Signed by: ANIL KUMAR SAHOO Designation: Junior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 13-Jan-2026 19:53:42

Kamal Kumar Jena v. Gouranga Swain

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kamal Kumar Jena v. Gouranga Swain

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

Lokanatha Kanhar Vs State of Odisha

Ranjit Sahu Vs State of Odisha

Santosh Karna Vs State of Odisha

Amulya Kumar Biswal Vs State of Odisha

Amita Dalai Vs Ramesh Naik

Bibhuti Bhusan Naik Vs State of Odisha