GANESH CHANDRA ROUT vs STATE OF ODISHA
- Court
- Odisha High Court
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CMP No.188 of 2019
CNR No. ODHC010116072019
An application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India
1. Ganesh Chandra Rout …. Petitioner
-versus-
1. State of Odisha represented
through Collector, Kendrapara
2. Dr. Pratap Chandra Mishra
3. Rama Chandra Gouda
4. Subash Chandra Nathsharma
5. Kshyama Sagar Panda
6. Suresh Ranjan Ray
7. Pranab Kishore Biswal
8. Deva Prasad Das
9. Satyabrata Jena
10. Sridhara Swain …. Opposite Parties
Advocates appeared in the case :
For Petitioner : M/s. S.S.K. Nayak, Kintara, A. Behera,
G.C. Ray & S.K. Panda,
For Opp. Parties : Mrs. Usharani Padhi,
Additional Standing Counsel.
(for O.P. No.1)
: M/s. G.R. Mohapatra, M. Mohapatra,
A. Dash & M.R. Pradhan .
(for O.P. No.5)
CMP No.188 of 2019 Page 1 of 7
CORAM:
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MRUGANKA SEKHAR SAHOO
J U D G M E N T
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date of Hearing and Judgment:10.11.2026
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MRUGANKA SEKHAR SAHOO, J.
1. Mr. Nayak, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Mr.
Mohapatra, learned counsel for the Opposite Party No.5
were heard at some length.
2. The CMP has been filed with the following prayer:
“…to admit this case and after hearing the petitioner‟s
advocate to set-a-side the Order dated. 18.1.2019
passed in I.A. No.482 of 2012 (Arising out of C.S.
No.251/2009) by the court of Civil Judge (Senior
Division), Pattamundai.”
3. The Petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated
18.01.2019 passed in I.A. No.482 of 2012 arising out of C.S.
NO.251 of 2009. The said order was passed by the learned
Civil Judge (Senior Division), Pattamundai (Annexure-3 to
the Writ Petition). The operative portion of the order is
reproduced herein:
“Heard. Perused the case record, it is found that the
present case No.482/12 U/o.39, Rule-2(A) CPC has
been filed on dtd.12-11-2012 and on 08-09-2017 for
the first time the petitioner examined himself as P.W.1.
Thereafter, since that date number of adjournments
have given to the petitioner to adduce evidence on his-
behalf but the petitioner knowingly delay the
proceeding of „the case by filing number of petitions for
time to adduce his evidence. As discussed in aforesaid
that this is a case of the year 2011. From 2012 till date
CMP No.188 of 2019 Page 2 of 7
the petitioner examined himself as only P.W.1. Although
number of adjournments have been given to him to
adduce evidence from his behalf this shows the
intention of the petitioner is nothing but to delay the
proceeding of the case. Hence, the petition stands©
rejected. Put up on 14.2.19 for hearing of I.A.”
4. The facts and submissions of the parties have been
noted by the learned trial Court in I.A. which is reproduced
herein:
“This order arises out of the petition dtd.14-08-
2018 filed by the petitioner U/o.18, Rule-17,.r/w
Section 151 of the CPC praying therein to recall the
order dtd.24-07-2018 and allow the petitioner to
adduce further evidence on his behalf.
It is submitted in the petition that the petitioner
has instituted the misc case U/o.39, Rule-2(A) CPC
against the Opp. Parties. The petitioner himself
examined as P.W.1 and he Has been cross-examined
by the Opp-Parties and the case was posted to 24-07-
2018 for adducing further evidence from the side of the
petitioner. But due to the illness, the petitioner could not
attend the court to move the petition: for which.-the
evidence from the side of the, petitioner was closed and
the case was posted to 20-08-2018 for adducing
evidence on behalf of the Opp. Parties. If the order did
24-07-2018 is not recalled and the petitioner is not
given the opportunity to adduce further evidence then
the petitioner shall suffer irreparable loss.
Objection filed by Opp. Party Nos. 1 to 8. The Opp.
Party No.10 filed his separate objection. It is submitted
in both the objection that the present petition is to file
only to linger the proceeding of the case. The petitioner
was given enough opportunity to adduce his evidence
but the petitioner intentionally took several
adjournments to adduce his evidence only to delay the
proceeding of the case for which this Court on 24-07-
2018 rejected the petition for time filed by the petitioner
and posted the case for adduce evidence from the side
CMP No.188 of 2019 Page 3 of 7
of Opp. Parties. Hence, the present petition is liable to
be dismissed.”
5. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties on
27.10.2026 the following order was passed by this Court:
“ 1. Pursuant to the order dated 30.09.2026 report has
been received from the learned Civil Judge (Senior
Division), Pattamundai by letter dated 07.10.2026
which is placed at Flag-10.
2. On perusal of the said report, it is apparent that
OS. No.251 of 2009 has proceeded, further evidence
has been adduced, the witnesses after examination
and cross-examination have been discharged and the
suit is posted to 13.10.2026 for hearing and
argument.
3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of her leader
Ms. Behera, learned counsel submits that she shall
obtain instruction.
4. The matter shall be listed 'For Orders' in the week
commencing 09.11.2026.”
6. The learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Pattamundai
has furnished the present status of the case by his Letter
No.470 dated 07.10.2026. The report of the learned Civil
Judge (Senior Division) is reproduced herein:
“This Is a suit for declaration instituted on
08.06.2009. All the defendants appeared on
10.07.2009. On 25.02.2010 all the defendants were set
ex parte and the case record was posted to 29.04.2010
for evidence. On 29.04.2010; ail the defendants filed
their written statement along with a petition to set aside
the order passed against them. Accordingly the petition
was allowed and the WS filed by them was accepted.
The case record was posted to 23.04.2011 for
settlement of issues. After disposal of various petitions
issues were settled on 16.01.2015. Then the case
record was posted to 04.05.2015 for hearing of the suit.
CMP No.188 of 2019 Page 4 of 7
On 22.03.2017 a petition u/o-1 rule 10(4) read with
section 151 of CPC was filed to implead Sridhar Swain
and Guru Charan Rout as defendants and the same
was allowed on 10.05.2019. After filing of their WS the
case record was posted again for settlement of issues.
After settlement of issues and disposal of several
petitions the case record was posted to 03.09.2025 for
evidence from the side of the plaintiffs. Two witnesses
on behalf of the plaintiffs were examined, cross
examined and discharged. On 22.07.2026 evidence
from the side of plaintiffs was closed and the case
record was posted to 07.08.2026 for evidence from the
side of the defendant No. 1 to 6. On 24.08.2026
evidence from the side of defendant No. 1 to 6 was
closed and the case record was posted to 07.09.2026
for evidence from the side of defendants No. 7 & 8. On
28.09.2026 one witness on behalf of the defendant No.
7 & 8 was examined, cross examined and discharged.
On 07.10.2026 the evidence from the side of defendant
No 7 & 8 is closed. Now the case record is posted to
13.10.2026 for hearing of argument.”
7. The facts those are relevant for present adjudication
are that after filing of the written statement and after
settlement of issues and disposal of several applications by
the plaintiffs, the matter was posted to 03.09.2025 for
evidence from the side of the plaintiffs. Two witnesses on
behalf of the plaintiffs were examined, cross-examined and
discharged.
On 22.07.2026 evidence from the side of the plaintiffs
was closed. Evidence from the side of defendant nos. 1 to 6
was closed on 24.08.2026. The witnesses on behalf of the
defendant no.7 & 8 were examined and discharged on
28.09.2026. On 07.10.2026 the evidence on behalf of
CMP No.188 of 2019 Page 5 of 7
defendant nos.7 & 8 was closed. The matter was posted to
13.10.2026 for hearing of arguments.
8. The relevant provision that requires consideration
Order 18, Rule 17 of the CPC is reproduced for convenience
of reference:
“ 17. Court may recall and examine witness-
The Court may at any stage of a suit recall any
witness who has been examined and may (subject
to the law of evidence for the time being in force)
put such questions to him as the Court thinks fit.”
9. In considered view of this Court after the evidence is
closed on behalf of the plaintiffs in the suit nothing further
remains in the present application arising out of an
application under Order 18, Rule 17 read with Section 151
of the CPC to recall the order dated 24.07.2018 to adduce
further evidence on behalf of Petitioner.
In considered view of this Court, in the Misc. Case
under Order 39, Rule 2(A) of the CPC filed by the plaintiffs
against the defendants no further evidence can be allowed to
be adduced as the same is only a interlocutory application
and the evidence in the suit has been closed. It also has to
be noted that prior to filing of the petition, the plaintiff-
Petitioner had adduced evidence as P.W.1 and was cross-
examined by the Opposite Parties.
10. Interim order dated 27.2.2019 has not been further
extended. The suit has proceeded further and it is posted for
arguments. Accordingly, the interim order stands vacated.
CMP No.188 of 2019 Page 6 of 7
11. In view of the above discussions, in considered opinion
of this Court, nothing survives for adjudication in the
present petition by this Court.
The CMP is disposed of accordingly.
12. Copy of this order shall be forwarded by the Registry to
the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Pattamundai to be
kept in the records of C.S. No.251 of 2009.
(Mruganka Sekhar Sahoo)
Judge
Orissa High Court, Cuttack
th
The 10 November, 2026/Amit
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: AMIT KUMAR MOHANTY
Reason: Authentication
Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK
Date: 13-Nov-2026 09:59:33
CMP No.188 of 2019 Page 7 of 7