The High Court · 2025
Case Details
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SANGRAM DAS Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 28-Nov-2025 13:29:12 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK C.M.P. No.1796 of 2025 (In the matter of an application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India) Pratima Behera …. Petitioner -versus- Ranjan Kumar Dalai & Ors. …. Opposite Parties Advocate(s) appeared in this case:- For Petitioner : Mr. A.Mishra, Advocate For Opposite Parties
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. A.K.Rout, Advocate for O.P.1 & 2 CORAM: JUSTICE B.P. ROUTRAY JUDGMENT 21st November 2025 B.P. Routray, J. 1. Heard Mr. A.Mishra, learned counsel for the Petitioner who files his power and Mr. A.K.Rout, learned counsel for Opposite Parties 1 & 2. C.M.P. No.1796 of 2025 Page 1 of 8 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SANGRAM DAS Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 28-Nov-2025 13:29:12 2. Present CMP is directed against order dated 17th October 2025 passed in C.S. No.1053 of 2021 by learned 2nd Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Cuttack, wherein the prayer of Defendant No.1 to add two more issues under Order 14 Rule 5 of the CPC has been rejected. 3. Present Opposite Parties 1 & 2 being the Plaintiffs filed the suit praying to declare Defendant No.1 (Present Petitioner) as neither adopted nor natural daughter of deceased Gopal Dalai and also to declare the legal heir certificate obtained by her to be void, illegal and not binding. The Plaintiffs have also prayed for permanent injunction against Defendant No.1 for alienating such property out of the properties mentioned in the schedule of the suit and other consequential reliefs. 4. In course of the suit, issues were framed and the evidence was adduced from the side of the Plaintiffs. After adducing evidence from the side of the Plaintiffs and examination of one witness from the side of the Defendant No.1, she filed a petition under Order 14 Rule 5 of CPC to add two more additional issues. This was rejected on the ground that framing of such additional issues is not necessary in view of Issues No.1 & 3 as already framed by the Court. C.M.P. No.1796 of 2025 Page 2 of 8 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SANGRAM DAS Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 28-Nov-2025 13:29:12 5. It is seen from Annexure-4 that the issues framed in the suit are as follows:- i. Whether the suit is maintainable in the eye of law. ii. Whether there is any cause of action for the plaintiff to institute the present suit. iii. Whether the suit is barred by law of limitation or under any other law. iv. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for a declaration that, the defendant No.l neither natural nor adopted daughter of deceased Gopal Dalai. v. Whether miscellaneous certificate obtained by the defendant No.l vide Miscellaneous certificate case No. E- LAC/2021/113408 in her favour is liable to be declared as void, illegal, fraudulent and not binding on the plaintiff and proforma defendants No. 3 & 4. vi. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for a decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendant No.l from alienating or mortgaging the suit scheduled land before any financial institution or from executing any kind of deed on the basis of the alleged legal heir certificate obtained by the defendant No.l. vii. To what other relief(s) the plaintiff is entitled for. 6. The two additional issues as sought to be added by Defendant No.1 are that,:- C.M.P. No.1796 of 2025 Page 3 of 8 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SANGRAM DAS Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 28-Nov-2025 13:29:12 (a) Whether the suit is not maintainable due to non-joinder of necessary parties? (b) Whether the plaintiffs have suppressed the material facts before the Court? 7. According to Defendant No.1, the averments made in the written statement filed by her is explicit to disclose suppression material facts by the Plaintiffs regarding the genealogy of Mani Dalai – the grandfather of the Plaintiffs, and non-joinder of necessary party. It is submitted that the Plaintiffs when claiming relief in respect of the joint family property in the schedule of properties, all co-sharers are necessary parties in the suit. 8. But according to the Plaintiffs, as submitted, since the relief is mainly against Defendant No.1 and no such relief is claimed against any other person, therefore, no other person than Defendant No.1 can be considered as necessary party. So, such an issue regarding non-joinder of necessary parties is not at all essential to be framed. It is also submitted on behalf of the Plaintiffs that there is no suppression of fact regarding the genealogy of Mani Dalai because the same was not mentioned as unnecessary to decide present dispute in the suit. C.M.P. No.1796 of 2025 Page 4 of 8 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SANGRAM DAS Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 28-Nov-2025 13:29:12 9. 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 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 C.M.P. No.1796 of 2025 Page 5 of 8 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SANGRAM DAS Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 28-Nov-2025 13:29:12 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. As seen from the contents from the plaint under Annexure-1 and the written statement filed by Defendant No.1 under Annexure- 2, it is found that at Para-10 and 13 in the W.S. Defendant No.1 has specifically stated that the suit is bad for non-joinder of parties and regarding suppression of such material facts with regard to genealogy of Late Mani Dalai. Though it is in the opinion of the Plaintiffs that addition of any other party is not necessary on the part of the Plaintiffs because their presence is not necessary for adjudication of the dispute, but when the Plaintiffs have specifically stated in the written statement that the suit is bad for non-joinder of parties, there cannot be any harm in addition of such an issue for decision. At this stage Mr. Mishra, learned counsel for the Petitioner (Defendant No.1) undertakes that Defendant No.1 will not recall any such witness or seek amendment of pleading for addition of such issues. Thus considering the contents of the written statement C.M.P. No.1796 of 2025 Page 6 of 8 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SANGRAM DAS Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 28-Nov-2025 13:29:12 specifically at Para-10, 13 and other paragraphs vis-à-vis the claim of the Plaintiffs and their pleadings in the plaint, this Court of the opinion that there would not be any harm in framing two more issues for decision and there will not be any delay in the proceeding of the suit specifically when it is undertaken on behalf of Defendant No.1 neither to recall any witness for further examination nor to seek any further amendment of the pleadings. 11. In the opinion of the Trial Court Issues No. 1 & 3 which are regarding maintainability of the suit and law of limitation, the same admittedly does not include the issues relating to non-joinder of parties and suppression of material fact. Non-joinder of parties in the suit as pleaded by Defendant No.1 and suppression of material facts stated in the written statement are two distinct factors ought to be adjudicated by the learned Trial Court when specifically found place in the pleading of the Defendant in the given facts of the present case. Thus it is seen that the learned Trial Court has not correctly appreciated the prayer of the Defendant No.1 to refuse the same. In such circumstances, when no harm is going to be committed upon the parties by framing two more additional issues which are necessary, in the opinion of this Court, relating to the matter in C.M.P. No.1796 of 2025 Page 7 of 8 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SANGRAM DAS Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 28-Nov-2025 13:29:12 controversy between the parties, the prayer of Defendant No.1 as per her petition dated 13th September 2025 (9th October 2025) is allowed.
Decision
12. Resultantly, the CMP is allowed and the impugned order is set aside adding two more additional issues as prayed by Defendant No.1 for decision of the suit. (B.P. Routray) Judge S.Das/Sr.Steno C.M.P. No.1796 of 2025 Page 8 of 8