Disposed¶19

Adwait Prasad Sahoo v. Surendra Pati

Orissa HC6 Mar 2026CMP/358/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Orissa High Court CMP Article 227 Order 26 Rule 9 CPC survey knowing commissioner appointment rejected by trial Court Bhadrak C.S No.482 of 2023 declaration of title permanent injunction W.S evidence not commenced liberty fresh application after closure of evidence disposed Justice Aditya Kumar Mohapatra 06.03.2026 Adwait Prasad Sahoo Surendra Pati.

What did the court decide?

No interference with the impugned rejection; liberty granted to the Petitioner to file a fresh Order 26 Rule 9 CPC application after closure of plaintiff-side evidence, to be considered by the trial Court strictly in accordance with law. ¶19

Adwait Prasad Sahoo Vs Surendra Pati — Writ and Judicial Review | Orissa HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶19

Issue for consideration

Whether this Court should interfere with / reverse the learned trial Court's order dated 01.12.2025 rejecting the plaintiff-petitioner's application under Order 26 Rule 9 of CPC for appointment of a Survey knowing Commissioner, given the state of plaintiff-side evidence in C.S No.482 of 2023.

¶14

Court's answer

This Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned order at the present stage: the trial Court had rejected the Order 26 Rule 9 CPC application on the ground that the plaintiff can prove the facts by adducing evidence in Court, and the evidence of the Plaintiff's side has not yet commenced.

¶18

Ratio / Principle

While disposing of the CMP, liberty is granted to the Petitioner to move a fresh application under Order 26 Rule 9 after closure of the evidence, and the learned trial Court shall then consider it strictly in accordance with law.

¶18

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

CMP (Article 227) No.358 of 2026, High Court of Orissa at Cuttack, order dated 06.03.2026 by Justice Aditya Kumar Mohapatra. Plaintiff-Petitioner Adwait Prasad Sahoo, plaintiff in pending civil suit C.S No.482 of 2023 (declaration of title and permanent injunction) before the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Bhadrak, challenged the trial Court's order dated 01.12.2025 rejecting his post-W.S. application under Order 26 Rule 9 of CPC for appointment of a Survey knowing Commissioner for better identification of the suit land. Finding that the trial Court held the plaintiff could prove the facts by adducing evidence and that plaintiff-side evidence had not yet commenced, the High Court declined to interfere at that stage, disposed of the CMP, and granted liberty to submit a fresh Order 26 Rule 9 application after closure of evidence, to be considered strictly in accordance with law.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CMP No.358 of 2026

¶2

Adwait Prasad Sahoo ..... Petitioner

¶3

Represented by Adv. - Ajit Kumar Sahoo

¶4

-versus-

¶5

Surendra Pati & Ors.

¶6

..... Opposite Parties Represented by Adv. -

¶7

CORAM:

¶8

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA

ORDER

06.03.2026

Order No.

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

¶13

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

¶14

By filing the present CMP application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the plaintiff-Petitioner in C.S No.482 of 2023 pending in the Court of learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Bhadrak has approached this Court challenging order dated 01.12.2025 whereby the application of the Plaintiff-Petitioner under Order 26 Rule 9 of CPC seeking appointment of a Survey knowing Commissioner has rejected by the learned trial Court.

¶15

Learned counsel for the Petitioner at the outset contended that the Petitioner-Plaintiff initially filed a suit for declaration of title and for permanent injunction. After filing of the W.S by the dependants Plaintiff filed his application under Order 26 Rule 9 of

¶16

Page 1 of 2.

¶17

CPC with a prayer for appointment of Survey knowing Commissioner for better identification of the suit land and to ascertain certain facts. Such application having been rejected by the learned trial Court, the Petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present CMP application.

¶18

On perusal of order dated 01.12.2025 it appears that the learned trial Court has rejected the application on the ground that the Plaintiff can very well prove the fact by adducing evidence in Court. It further appears that the evidence of the Plaintiff’s side has not yet commenced. In such view of the matter, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned order at the stage. However, while disposing of the present CMP application, liberty is granted to the Petitioner to move a fresh application under Order 26 Rule 9 after closure of the evidence and in such eventuality, the learned trial Court shall consider the same is strictly in accordance with law.

¶19

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

¶20

( A.K. Mohapatra)

¶21

Judge

¶22

Anil

¶23

Signature Not Verified Page 2 of 2.

¶24

Digitally Signed Signed by: ANIL KUMAR SAHOO Designation: Junior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 10-Mar-2026 15:12:00

Adwait Prasad Sahoo v. Surendra Pati

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Adwait Prasad Sahoo v. Surendra Pati

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

Nirakar Sahoo Vs State of Odisha

Asit Kumar Praharaj Vs State of Odisha

Brundaban Kamila Vs State of Odisha

Jasani Dehuria Vs Satyabrat Sahu,Ias,Addl Chief Secretary, Home Department, Govt. of Orissa

Managing Committee of Gadadhar Girls High School,Balasore Vs State of Odisha

Sadananda Dehury Vs State of Odisha