ORISSA HIGH COURT : CUTTACK v. Kanakalata Ray

: Mr.N.P.Parija, Advocate P R E S E N T: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANANDA CHANDRA BEHERA Date of Hearing: 25.11.2025 :: Date of Judgment : 23.12.2025 ANANDA CHANDRA BEHERA, J.— J UDGMENT

This Civil Miscellaneous Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950 has been filed by the Petitioner (Appellant in the first appeal vide R.F.A. No.66 of 2016) challenging an order of rejection to his petition under Order 26 Rule 10-A of the C.P.C, 1908 passed on dated 11.09.2017 (Annexure-6) by the learned District Judge, Jagatsinghpur in R.F.A. No.66 of 2016.

The factual backgrounds of this Civil Miscellaneous Petition, which prompted the Petitioner for filing of the same is that, he (Petitioner) being the Appellant had filed the first appeal vide R.F.A. No.66 of 2016 challenging the judgment and decree of the dismissal of the suit vide C.S. No.121 of 2008 passed on dated

31.08.2016 by learned Civil Judge, Jr.Division, Jagatsinghpur.

In that first appeal vide R.F.A. No.66 of 2016, he (Appellant/Plaintiff) filed a petition under Order 26 Rule 10-A of the C.P.C, 1908 praying for sending the signatures vide Exts.B/2, B/3 and the LTIs on the sale deed No.58 dated 06.01.1982 (Ext.B) to the handwriting expert for scientific investigation and comparison with his undisputed signatures and LTIs. To which, the learned District Judge, Jagatsinghpur rejected as per the impugned order dated 11.09.2017 (Annexure-6) passed in R.F.A. No.66 of 2016 assigning the reasons that, the genuineness of the sale deed in question vide R.S.D. No.58

06.01.1982 (Ext.B) was previously decided/adjudicated in a suit vide C.S. No.139 of 2006 and an appeal against the same vide R.F.A. No.23 of 2008 was dismissed. When, the same nature of petition under Order 26 Rule 10-A of the C.P.C, 1908 of the Petitioner was rejected by the learned Trial Court in the earlier suit vide C.S. No.139 of 2006 and when, on the basis of the materials and evidence available in the record, the subsequent suit vide C.S. No.121 of 2008 filed by the Plaintiff was decided and against which, the appeal vide R.F.A. No.66 of 2016 is subjudice/pending, then, the question of entertaining the same nature of application under Order 26 Rule 10-A of the C.P.C, 1908 of the Plaintiff/Appellant in R.F.A. No.66 of 2016 does not arise.

On being dissatisfied with the impugned order dated

11.09.2017 (Annexure-6) passed in R.F.A. No.66 of 2016, the Appellant/Plaintiff thereof being the Petitioner filed this C.M.P. under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950 praying for quashing the above impugned order dated 11.09.2017 (Annexure-6) passed in R.F.A. No.66 of 2016.

I have already heard from the learned counsels of both the sides.

When, the same nature of petition under Order 26 Rule 10- A of the C.P.C, 1908 of the Petitioner for the same prayer was rejected earlier on merit by the learned Trial Court in the earlier suit vide C.S. No.139 of 2006 and when in the judgment and decree passed in the earlier suit vide C.S. No.139 of 2006, the genuineness of the sale deed No.58 dated 06.01.1982 (Ext.B) was considered and decided and when that judgment and decree passed in C.S. No.139 of 2006 was confirmed in R.F.A. No.23 of 2008 and when, the judgment and decree passed in the subsequent suit vide C.S. No.121 of 2008 is under challenge in the first appeal vide R.F.A. No.66 of 2016 for adjudication of all points including the point relating to the genuineness of the sale deed No.58 dated 06.01.1982 (Ext.B), on the basis of the pleadings and evidence of the parties and when, the materials available in the record are sufficient to pronounce the judgment in first appeal vide R.F.A. No.66 of 2016 on merit and when as per the opinion of the learned 1st Appellate Court, no additional material or evidence is required for the decision of the first appeal vide R.F.A. No.66 of 2016, then at this juncture, the question of interfering with the impugned order of rejection to the petition under Order 26 Rule 10-A C.P.C. of the Petitioner passed on dated 11.09.2017 (Annexure-6) in R.F.A. No.66 of 2016 by the learned District Judge, Jagatsinghpur through this C.M.P. filed by the Petitioner does not arise. Therefore, there is no merit in this Civil Miscellaneous Petition filed by the Petitioner. The same must fail.

In result, the Civil Miscellaneous Petition filed by the Petitioner is dismissed on contest.

As such, this CMP filed by the Petitioner is disposed of finally. High Court of Orissa, Cuttack 23.12.2025// Binayak Sahoo Jr. Stenographer (ANANDA CHANDRA BEHERA) JUDGE Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BINAYAK SAHOO Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 26-Dec-2025 13:51:14