SULOCHANA SAHOO vs BASANTI MALLICK

Court
Odisha High Court

CMP/1636/2026
ODHC010721702026
2026:OHC:217
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CMP No. 1636 of 2026
[ CNR No. ODHC010721702026 ]

An application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

Smt. Sulochana Sahoo …. Petitioner

(Plaintiff)

-versus-
1. Smt. Basanti Mallick
1A. Binamra Binaya
1B. Smt. Sabitri Sahoo, (Dead)
1C. Tithirupa Tapaswini
1D. Smt. Sabitri Sahoo, (Dead)
2. Rabindranath Mallick
3. Sri Sashi Sekhar Mohanty
4. Sri Dillip Kumar Praharaj
5. Premananda Behera
6. Sri Pramod Kumar Padhi
7. Smt. Basantamanjari Baral
8. Sri Laxman Mishra
9. Smt. Tanu Rath
10. Sri Ashok Kumar Puhana
11. Smt. Gitanjali Bhoi
12. Smt. Sasmita Matogaj Singh
13. Smt. Rajashree Rout
14. Smt. Nirupama Panda
15. Smt. Tilotama Behera
16. Smt. Sandhya Panda
17. Smt. Sandhyarani Parida
18. Sri Makara Charana Das
19. Sri Ranka Sabat
20. Smt. Urmila Bastia
21. Sri Millan Kumar Mohanty
22. Sri Bijay Kumar Bhanja
23. Sri Sanjit Kumar Das
24. Sri Sarat Kumar Sahu, (Dead)
24(a). Smt. Pankajini Sahoo
24(b). Anil Kumar Sahoo
24(c). Mamata Sahoo































….





























Opposite Parties
(Defendants)

CMP No. 1636 of 2026 Page 1 of 7



Advocates who appeared in this case on hybrid mode :


For Petitioner : Ms. Pratyusha Naidu, Advocate

For Opposite Party :


CORAM:
JUSTICE SAVITRI RATHO
HON’BLE MISS
JUDGMENT
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date of Hearing and Judgment : 15.10.2026
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Savitri Ratho, J. This CMP has been filed with a prayer to target the Civil
Suit No. 596 of 2006 pending in the Court of learned Senior Civil
Judge, LR & LT, Bhubaneswar.
BRIEF FACTS OF CASE
2. The Petitioner as Plaintiff approached the learned Senior
Civil Judge, LR & LT Bhubaneswar in C.S no 596 of 2006 seeking
declaration of sale deed executed by Defendant No.1 in favour of
Defendants No. 3 to 23 as void, for correction of Record of Right,
permanent injunction along with other ancillary reliefs.
3. On receipt of summons the Opposite Parties-Defendants
entered appearance in the suit and filed their respective written
statements. Pursuant to settlement of issues, the evidence from the
side of the Petitioner/Plaintiff commenced and P.W.1 after being
CMP No. 1636 of 2026 Page 2 of 7

examined and cross-examined at length, was discharged on
17.03.2025. Corrected affidavit evidence of P.W.2-the second witness
from the side of the Petitioner/Plaintiff was filed on 29.07.2025, but
his cross-examination has not been completed.
SUBMISSION
4. Ms. Pratyusha Naidu, learned counsel for the
Petitioner/Plaintiff submits that the evidence of the Plaintiff started on
08.01.2025. On account of dilatory tactics adopted by the Defendants,
cross-examination of P.W.1 has been completed on 17.03.2025 and
she has been discharged. But as regards P.W.2, who is also a senior
citizen, his amended evidence affidavit was filed on 29.07.2025
which was accepted on 11.08.2025, but his cross-examination has not
been completed, as the matter is being adjourned repeatedly at the
instance of the Defendants, for his further cross-examination, without
any justification. She submits that the learned trial Court has been
unnecessarily lenient and has adjourned the case on a number of
occasions at the instance of the Defendants, especially Defendant
No.5, thereby causing immense physical hardship, mental stress as
well as financial loss to the Plaintiff and P.W. 2 who is also a senior
citizen like the Plaintiff-Sulochna Sahoo. She submits that this would
be apparent from a perusal of Annexure-1 which contains orders of
CMP No. 1636 of 2026 Page 3 of 7

the learned trial Court. Ms. Naidu, learned counsel for the Petitioner
submits that now the case is posted to last week of October, 2026 for
further cross examination of P.W.2.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION
5. In view of the order, I propose to pass, I do not consider it
necessary to issue notice to the Opposite Parties.
6. Annexure-1 is the order sheet in Civil Suit No. 596 of 2006,
containing orders passed on 08.01.2025 till 02.03.2026.
7. Perusal of the order sheet reveals that cross-examination of
P.W.1 has continued on 08.01.2025, 18.01.2025, 28.01.2025,
14.02.2025, 28.02.2025, 10.03.2025, 17.03.2025, 26.03.2025,
10.04.2025, 23.04.2025, 08.07.2025, 29.07.2025 and was completed
on 11.08.2025. It is also obvious that on some of these dates, no steps
have been taken on behalf of some of the Defendants. The
examination of P.W.2-Prakash Chandra Sahoo has commenced on
08.07.2025. On 11.08.2025, due to some corrections in his
evidence, the evidence filed by him on 26.03.2025 was expunged and
the fresh affidavit evidence filed by him on 29.07.2025 has been
accepted. He has been cross-examined on 22.11.2025, 10.12.2025,
23.12.2025, 07.01.2026, 19.01.2026, 03.02.2026, 17.02.2026 and
02.03.2026 by the Defendants. On 02.03.2026, the case was
CMP No. 1636 of 2026 Page 4 of 7

adjourned for his further cross-examination to 08.07.2026. On some
of these dates, no steps have been taken on behalf of some of the
defendants.
8 . Perusal of the cause title of Annexure-1 reveals that the
plaintiff Sulochana Sahoo was aged about 68 years and her registered
power of attorney Prakash Chandra Sahoo was aged about 51 years in
the year 2006.
9. The relevant paragraph of the decision of the Supreme Court
in the case of Sangram Sadashiv Suryavanshi vs. The State of
Maharashtra reported in 2024 INSC 899, is extracted below : -
In paragraph 47.3 of the decision of a Constitution Bench of
“
High Court Bar Association, Allahabad vs.
in the case of ‘
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 or dinary 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;”
CMP No. 1636 of 2026 Page 5 of 7


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.”
10. The concerned Court before whom a matter is pending, 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. The High Court is not expected
to issue any direction to any Court, in a routine manner in the absence
of special circumstances, for disposal of any case within a specified
time.
11. In the present case, after hearing learned counsel for the
Plaintiff - Petitioner, perusal of the averments in the CMP and the
annexures especially Annexure-1, I find that the suit is of the year
2006; P.W.2, the Plaintiff is aged about 71 years; and the
defendants have been taking repeated adjournments for completing
cross examination of P.W.2.
12. These in my opinion are special circumstances for which it
would be in the interest of justice to issue a direction to the learned
trial court to make an endeavour for expeditious disposal of the suit
within a stipulated period.
CMP No. 1636 of 2026 Page 6 of 7

13. The CMP is therefore disposed of, directing the learned
Senior Civil Judge, LR & LT, Bhubaneswar to make an endeavour for
disposing Civil Suit No. 596 of 2006 expeditiously, preferably within
a period of six months from the date of receipt of this order, if there is
no other legal impediment, granting opportunity of hearing to the
parties but without granting unnecessary adjournments to any party.
14. As regards cross-examination of P.W. 2, the learned trial
court is requested to make an endeavour to complete cross-
examination of P.W. 2 within a period of four weeks.
15. As this order has been passed without issuing notice to the
Opposite Parties, they are at liberty to approach this Court for
modification / recall of this order in case there has been any
suppression of material facts by the Petitioner-Plaintiff.
16.
Copy of this order be communicated to the learned Senior
Civil Judge, LR & LT, Bhubaneswar by the Registry forthwith.

………………….
(Savitri Ratho)
Judge
Orissa High Court, Cuttack
th
Dated the 15 October, 2026/Sukanta/ Puspa
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: PUSPANJALI MOHAPATRA
Designation: Personal Assistant
Reason: Authentication
Location: Orissa High Court
Date: 17-Oct-2026 19:00:23
CMP No. 1636 of 2026 Page 7 of 7