PRAMOD KUMAR SINGH @ PRAMOD SINGH vs UMAMANI MOHANTY

CMP/1634/2026
ODHC010726632026
2026:OHC:212

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

CMP No.1634 of 2026

[ CNR No. ODHC010726632026 ]

(An application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India)


Pramod Kumar Singh @ Pramod
Singh
…. Petitioner

(Defendant No.2)

-versus-
1. Umamani Mohanty

2. Jangyaseny Das
3. Udayani Mohanty
4. Iswar Singh
5. Sri Jagannath Mohaprabhu
Bije, Marfat Managing
Committee, Sri Jagannath
Temple, Puri
6. Tahasildar, Puri

7. Sanjibratha Mohanty




….







….

…..


( Plaintiffs)







( Proforma Opposite
Parties)
Opposite parties

Advocates who appeared in the case through Hybrid Mode:

For Petitioner : Ms. Adyasha Mohapatra, Advocate

For Opposite Parties :

CORAM:
ICE SAVITRI RATHO
HON’BLE MISS JUST

J U D G M E N T
……………………………………………………………………...
Date of Hearing and Judgment: 15.10.2026
……………………………………………………………………...
.


CMP No.1634 of 2026 Page 1 of 7

Savitri Ratho, J.
This CMP has been filed by the Defendant No.2 in Civil
Suit No.43 of 2023 pending in the Court of the learned Civil Judge
(Junior Division), Puri, praying for a direction to the learned trial
Court to conclude the suit within a stipulated time.
2. Neither the “ synopsis ” nor the “list of dates” are in order as
they do not contain the necessary information.
“Synopsis” and “list of
are required to be filed to assist the Court in
dates and events”
disposal of the case. It is unfortunate that many learned counsel have
made a mockery of this requirement and consider this to be a
formality and file these two documents without necessary details ,
only to avoid defects being pointed out but the Stamp Reporter.
3. In the present case, the status of the parties is mentioned in
the synopsis and in the list of dates, one year and one date have been
mentioned. It has been stated that the plaint has been filed in 2023
and on 18.07.2025 written statement has been filed. As a proper
synopsis and date chart have not been filed, I had to go through the
entire CMP and the annexures, resulting in wastage of Court time.
4. Annexurer-5 series contains orders passed on 21.09.2024
till 20.06.2026 in the Civil Suit. Perusal of the orders reveals that on
CMP No.1634 of 2026 Page 2 of 7

24.09.2024, the Defendant No.3 had filed a petition for acceptance of
the written statement. No objection to the same was filed by the
Plaintiffs. The said application was allowed and the written statement
of Defendant No.3 has been accepted subject to payment of cost of
Rs. 100/- to the plaintiffs. Cost has been paid on 26.11.2024 and the
written statement filed by the Defendant No.3 has been accepted. The
case was adjourned to 07.01.2025 awaiting PA against Defendant
No.5. On 07.01.2025, the Court observed that the case was
inadvertently posted for awaiting PA instead of filing of fresh steps
against Defendant No.5 and case was accordingly adjourned to
11.02.2025 for filing of fresh steps against Defendant No. 5. It was
adjourned from 11.02.2025, 05.03.2025, 11.04.2025 and 19.06.2025
for the same purpose even though no application was filed by the
plaintiffs praying for time to take steps. There is also no order till
20.06.2026 that fresh steps had been filed.
5. On 18.07.2025, written statement was filed on behalf of
Defendant No.2 (present petitioner) along with two separate petitions
under Order 9 Rule 7 of CPC and under Order 8 Rule 9 of CPC. The
case was adjourned to 19.08.2025 for filing of objection and hearing
CMP No.1634 of 2026 Page 3 of 7

on the aforesaid petition. The matter was thereafter listed on
19.08.2025, 16.09.2025, 24.10.2025, 22.11.2025, 24.12.2025,
09.02.2026, 12.03.2026, 23.04.2026 and 20.06.2026 for filing of
objection.
6. Annexure 7 is copy of the order sheet in I.A. No. 28 of 2023,
containing orders passed on 05.09.2023, 18.09.2023, 07.10.2023,
30.10.2023 and order dated 05.12.2025. The I.A has been dismissed
on 05.12.2025 for default, as no steps were taken on behalf of the
petitioners and the matter had been lingering for hearing since long.
7.
Ms. Mohapatra learned counsel for the petitioner submits
that till date, objection has not been filed by the plaintiff to the
petitions filed by the Defendant No.2 under Order 9 Rule 7 of the
CPC and under Order 8 Rule 9 of the CPC filed for acceptance of
written statement, but the case is being adjourned mechanically
without sufficient reason for filing of objection by the plaintiffs,
causing financial difficulty and immense harassment to the petitioner.
She therefore prays that the learned trial Court may be directed to
dispose of the suit within a specified time.
CMP No.1634 of 2026 Page 4 of 7

8
. In view of the nature of order, I propose to pass, I do not
consider it necessary to issue notice to the Opposite Parties.
9 . In the case of Sangram Sadashiv Suryavanshi Vs. The
State of Maharashtra reported in 2024 INSC 899, the Supreme
Court has held as follows:
In paragraph 47.3 of the decision of a Constitution
“
High Court Bar Association,
Bench of in the case of ‘
Allahabad vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. reported in
(2024) 6 SCC 267 , this Court has held that in the
ordinary course, the Constitutional Courts should refrain
from fixing a time-bound schedule for the disposal of
cases pending before any other Courts. Paragraph 47.3
reads thus:
“47.3. Constitutional courts, in the ordinary
course, should refrain from fixing a time-bound
schedule for the disposal of cases pending before
any other courts. Constitutional courts may issue
directions for the time-bound disposal of cases
only in exceptional circumstances. The issue of
prioritising the disposal of cases should be best left
to the decision of the courts concerned where the

cases are pending;” (underline supplied)
A direction which can be issued in exceptional
circumstances is being routinely issued by High Courts
without noticing the law laid down by the Constitution

Bench.”
CMP No.1634 of 2026 Page 5 of 7

10.
It is therefore no longer res integra that the High Court is
not expected to issue direction in a routine manner to the learned
trial courts for disposal of any case within a specified time. The
concerned Court is expected to regulate its own procedure in
respect of the cases on its board for effective disposal and to
ensure that the cases are disposed of within a reasonable period of
time.
11 . In view of the above discussion, I am not satisfied that any
direction should be issued presently to the learned trial Court to
dispose of the suit within a particular period.
12. But as it is apparent that the two petitions filed under Order
9 Rule 7 and under Order 8 Rule 9 of the CPC, by the petitioner
for acceptance of written statement, are pending since more than
one year, I deem it proper in the interest of justice to direct the
learned trial Court to dispose of the two petitions after affording
only one more chance to the plaintiff for filing objection. I also
deem it proper to direct the learned trial court to proceed with the
suit without granting unnecessary adjournments to any party.
CMP No.1634 of 2026 Page 6 of 7

13
. It is also directed if fresh steps have not been filed against
Defendant No.5, appropriate orders in that regard should also be
passed.
14 . The CMP is disposed of with the aforesaid observations and
directions.
15 . Copy of this order be communicated to the learned trail
Court by the Registry forthwith.

(Savitri Ratho)
Judge


Orissa High Court, Cuttack
th
Dated, the 15 October, 2026/Madhusmita

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: MADHUSMITA PARIDA
Reason: Authentication
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
Date: 16-Oct-2026 19:56:36
CMP No.1634 of 2026 Page 7 of 7