The High Court · 2025
Case Details
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SANGRAM DAS Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 09-Dec-2025 10:25:08 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK C.M.P. No.1067 of 2025 (In the matter of an application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India) Samir Muduli & Anr. …. Petitioners -versus- Kapila Charana Muduli @ Kapila Mudili & Anr. …. Opposite Parties Advocate(s) appeared in this case:- For Petitioners
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. D.Mahapatra, Sr.Advocate along with Mr. J.Barik, Advocate For Opposite Parties : Mr. S.N.Biswal, Advocate for O.P.1 CORAM: JUSTICE B.P. ROUTRAY JUDGMENT 4th December 2025 B.P. Routray, J. 1. Heard Mr. D.Mahapatra, learned Senior Counsel along with Mr. J.Barik, learned counsel for the Petitioners and Mr. S.N.Biswal, learned counsel for Opposite Party No. 1. C.M.P. No.1067 of 2025 Page 1 of 6 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SANGRAM DAS Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 09-Dec-2025 10:25:08 2. At the outset, Mr. Mahapatra, learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner confines the challenge in present CMP against impugned order dated 11th February 2025 passed in C.S. No.122 of 2009 of learned Civil Judge (Sr.Division), Nimapara. 3. Present impugned order was passed by the learned Trial Court at the stage of argument by rejecting the prayer of the Defendant to insert two new issues for adjudication. 4. The Petitioners are the substituted Defendant No.1 who raised their counter claim for permanent injunction in the suit filed by present Opposite Party No.1 as the Plaintiff praying for a declaration against original Defendant No.1 that he is the son of Late Sudarsan Biswal and consequential reliefs. 5. It is submitted by Mr. Mahapatra, learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioners that the issues framed by the Court was not earlier signed but only signed on 21st August 2023 by the Trial Court vide Annexure-4, and therefore the petitioners had no knowledge of such issues as the same was not available in record and it came to light when it was signed on 21st August 2023. In the opinion of present Petitioners three more issues as suggested by them in the draft issue dated 4th January 2025 (Annexure-3 series) is required to be C.M.P. No.1067 of 2025 Page 2 of 6 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SANGRAM DAS Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 09-Dec-2025 10:25:08 determined in view of the dispute in the suit as well as in the cross suit. 6. For better appreciation, the issues as already framed by the Trial Court as per Annexure-4 are as follows:- i. Whether the suit is maintainable in its present form? ii. Whether the plaintiff has got any cause of action to institute the suit? iii. Whether limitation? the suit is barred by law of iv. Whether the defendant is the son of late Sudarsan Biswal? v. Whether the defendant can be permanently injuncted from the suit property? vi. To what other relief, the parties are entitled to? 7. The additional issues suggested on behalf of present Defendant No.1 series are, as per the submissions with reference to the draft issue under Anexure-3 series, are as follows:- 5.Whether the suit is defective for suppression of material facts ? 8. Whether the Regd. deed of acknowledging the factum of adoption on dated 19.6.1964(Nineteenth day of June, Nineteen hundred sixty four)is legal, lawful and genuine? C.M.P. No.1067 of 2025 Page 3 of 6 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SANGRAM DAS Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 09-Dec-2025 10:25:08 9. Whether the sale deed executed by Sudarsan Biswal on dated 19.06.l964 (Nineteenth day of June Nineteen hundred sixty four) in favour of Jagannath Muduli was for his legal necessity with consideration followed up delivery of possession as well as the alleged sale is genuine and valid one? 8. At the same time, Mr. Mahapatra, learned Senior Counsel undertakes on behalf of the Petitioners (Defendant No.1 series) that for addition of these three additional issues, Defendant No.1 series shall not adduce any further pleading or evidence on record nor will seek time for the same and will rely upon the materials already available on record. 9. Under Order 14 Rule 5 CPC, the Court is authorized to add or delete such issues as may be necessary for determining the matters in controversy between the parties. In C.M.P. No. 1796 of 2025,
Decision
disposed of on 27th November 2025, this court has observed that; “Rule 5 of Order 14 authorizes the Court to add or strikeout the issues at any stage of the suit before passing the decree. When the issues already framed are required to be struck down, it is to be seen that such issues, in the opinion of the Court, have been wrongly framed. In order to add additional issues it must be in the opinion of the Court that such issues are necessary for determining the matter in controversy between the parties. Framing of the issues is an obligation of the Court in order to find out the exact nature of controversy and to narrow down the scope C.M.P. No.1067 of 2025 Page 4 of 6 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SANGRAM DAS Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 09-Dec-2025 10:25:08 of the dispute between the parties. By Order 14 Rule 1(5) CPC the Court is required to ascertain as to what material proposition of fact or of law, the parties are at variance and therefore frame the issues on which the right decision of the case appears to depend. A point alleged by the plaintiffs and admitted by the defendants cannot be said to be in issue and a decision can be given on the basis of the admission without an issue. If the party intends to make a particular averment to be the subject matter of an issue in a suit, then it must be specifically denied. The omission to raise an issue on a point implies abandonment of such point by the party. When there is any error on the part of the Court in framing such issues, nothing forbids the parties from bringing such error to the notice of the Court and request for amendment of issues either by deletion of issue or framing of additional issues. But this does not prevent the Court from amending or striking out issues as and when occasion arises for the same.” 10. In the given facts of the case taking into account the peculiarity of situation in settlement of issues as per Annexure-4, which is stated to have not signed earlier but only signed on 21st August 2023, i.e. when the parties have adduced their evidences, it is found appropriate on the part of the Court to take note of such dispute to be adjudicated in the issues suggested additionally by Defendant No.1 series since they have raised their counter claim challenging the adoption deed and the sale deed. C.M.P. No.1067 of 2025 Page 5 of 6 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SANGRAM DAS Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 09-Dec-2025 10:25:08 11. It is submitted by both parties that they have already adduced their evidences and the materials are available for decision on such issues and therefore, the parties need not further delve to bring any additional material or evidence to that effect. So keeping all such circumstances in view, such additional issues as suggested by Defendant No.1 series is allowed to be incorporated for adjudication of the dispute between the parties. 12. In the result, the impugned order dated 11th February 2025 is set aside allowing the prayer of Defendant No.1 series to add three more issues as stated above. The learned Trial Court is accordingly directed to recast the issues and proceed further in the suit. (B.P. Routray) Judge S.Das/Sr.Steno C.M.P. No.1067 of 2025 Page 6 of 6