The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK C.M.P. No.980 of 2025 Harihar Patri -versus- Aditya Kumar Khuntia and another …. Petitioner Ms. D. Mohapatra, Advocate …. Opposite Parties Mr. T.K. Mishra, Advocate CORAM: JUSTICE B. P. ROUTRAY
Decision
ORDER 09.07.2025 Order No. 01. 1. Heard Ms. D. Mohapatra, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Mr. T.K. Mishra, learned counsel for the Opposite Parties. 2. The Petitioner, who is the Plaintiff in C.S. No.48 of 2023 and Defendant in C.S. No.100 of 2023, has prayed before learned trial court, where both the suits are pending, for analogous hearing. But in the opinion of the learned trial court, the decision in one suit shall decide the issue in the other suit and therefore, it thought appropriate to stay the subsequent suit till disposal of the earlier suit. Said order dated 06.05.2025 of learned Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.), Puri is challenged in present C.M.P. 3. It is seen from the impugned order at paragraph 6 that learned trial court has observed that the parties in both the suits are same and the facts in dispute are also same which is the boundary dispute. Not only this much, but in the opinion of learned trial court the substantial question of issue in both the suits are also Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BASANTA KUMAR BARIK Designation: Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 09-Jul-2025 18:40:44 same. The relevant observation of learned trial court is re- produced below:- “6. Perusal of C.S. No.48/23 and C.S. No.100/23 it /-' reveals that the similar parties are involved in both the case. Further in both the cases fact and dispute are same i.e. boundary dispute. It is admitted case of the parties in both the cases that plot No.223 belongs to the plaintiffs of suit No.48/23 and plot No.224 belongs to the defendants of the suit No.48/23 and the said two plots are adjacent to each other. There is issue in both the suits that whether the disputed area belongs to the plot No.223 or plot No.224. This court is of the view that substantial question for issue which will be decided in both the suits are same. By clubbing both the suits no fruitful result will come out because parties to both the suits are contesting the suits in different capacity as one party which is plaintiff in one case, he is defendant in another case. In both the cases similar kind of evidence will be adduced. Analogous hearing of both the suits is going to give no fruitful result. Determination of question in one suit will decide the fate of another suit. At this juncture this court thinks it proper to stay one suit. The suit No.48/23 is the earlier suit and the suit No. 100/23 is the subsequent suit. Further, no written statement has been filed in C.S. No.100/23. Therefore, this court is humble view that the suit No.48/23 should run and the suit No.100/23 should be stayed till disposal of the suit No.48/23. It is to be noted here that the facts of judgment in Basanti Panda @ Mishra (supra) is not similar to the fact of the present case.” 4. At this stage, Mr. T.K. Mishra, learned counsel for the Opposite Parties submits that such finding of learned trial court Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BASANTA KUMAR BARIK Designation: Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 09-Jul-2025 18:40:44 Page 2 of 4 treating the facts and issues in both the suits as same is incorrect and therefore, both the suits should be tried separately. It is submitted by Mr. Mishra that when the facts and the schedule of property are different in both the suits, the analogous trial of the suits is not permissible. In support of his contention, Mr. Mishra relies on the decision of this Court in Smt. Suryamani Sarangi vs. Pravakar@Prava Sankar Sarangi and another, 104(2007) CLT 692 and the decision of Rajasthan High Court in the case of Ganeshdas and another vs. Ramesh Chandra And another, RLW 2003(2) RAJ 977. 5. Conversely, Ms. Mohapatra, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that such finding of the learned trial court made at paragraph 6 of the impugned order is not challenged by the Opposite Parties and as such it debars them from raising the objection at this stage with regard to authenticity of such finding. She further submits that when learned trial court has observed that the facts, the substantial questions and the parties are same and it is the boundary dispute between same parties, there is no harm in trying both the suits analogously. In support of her submission, Ms. Mohapatra relies on the decision of this Court in the case of Basanti Panda@Mishra vs. Kananabala Panda@Dash and others, decided on 15.12.2021 in C.M.P. No.467 of 2021. 6. I have heard both the parties and perused the impugned order as well as gone through the decisions relied on by both the parties. What is important to see that the facts of the case reveal Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BASANTA KUMAR BARIK Designation: Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 09-Jul-2025 18:40:44 Page 3 of 4 that the suit Plot No.223 and 224 are involved in both the suits where undisputedly a boundary dispute exists between the parties. The finding of the learned trial court on the facts is that, the substantial questions as well as the parties are same. So it is felt apposite to try both the suits analogously in the interest of justice and no valid reason is seen to stay one suit while continuing the other. 7. In view of clear opinion of learned trial court as recorded at paragraph 6 of the impugned order, the prayer to try both the suits analogously is allowed. Accordingly, learned trial court is directed to proceed in trying both the suits analogously. 8. The C.M.P. is allowed. 9. Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application. Judge ( B.P. Routray) B.K. Barik Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BASANTA KUMAR BARIK Designation: Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 09-Jul-2025 18:40:44 Page 4 of 4