UMESH CHANDRA JAGATI vs SUBAL PATRA
- Court
- Odisha High Court
CMP/1778/2026
ODHC010787262026
2026:OHC:256
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CMP No. 1778 of 2026
CNR NO. -ODHC010787262026
An application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India
Umesh Chandra Jagati … Petitioner
-versus-
Subal Patra and 25 others Opposite
…
Parties
Advocates appeared in this case through Hybrid Mode :
For Petitioner : Mr. Prafulla Kumar Biswal, Advocate
For Opposite Parties :
CORAM:
JUSTICE SAVITRI RTHO
HON’BLE MISS
.……………………………………………………………………
Date of Hearing & Judgment: 31.10.2026
……………………………………………………………………..
Savitri Ratho, J. This CMP has been filed by the plaintiff for
issue of a direction to the learned Civil Judge, (Senior Division),
Pattamundai to dispose of Civil Suit No. 47 of 2021 within a
specified stipulated period. This matter was taken on board.
2. In view of the nature of the order, I propose to pass, I do
CMP No. 1778 of 2026 Page 1 of 7
//2//
not consider it necessary to issue notice to the Opposite Parties and
hear them, before doing so.
BRIEF FACTS
3 . Civil Suit No. 47 of 2021 was filed praying for declaration,
evicting, recovery of possession and permanent injunction in
respect of the suit schedule lands.
SUBMISSIONS
4. Mr. P. K. Biswal, learned counsel for the Plaintiff-Petitioner
submits that he has filed the certified copy of the order sheet in
Civil Suit No. 47 of 2021 containing orders up to 08.07.2026,
perusal of which would reveal that the defendants have adopted
various dilatory tactics and prevented disposal of the suit for which
the suit is still pending compelling him to approach this Court for
issue of a direction for its disposal.
5. Mr. Biswal, learned counsel for the Petitioner is however
unable to submit the next date in the suit for which the matter is
passed over to enable him to take instructions and inform the
Court about the next date to which the suit is posted.
CMP No. 1778 of 2026 Page 2 of 7
//3//
Later
6. Mr. Biswal, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that
now the suit is posted to 17.11.2026 for carrying out the
amendment.
ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION
7. Perusal of the order sheet reveals that after appearance of
the defendants 1 to 26 in the suit, the suit had been posted to
22.12.2021 for filing of written statement. As written statement
was not filed in spite of several adjournments on 04.03.2022, the
defendants were debarred from filing written statement.
Thereafter, on 20.02.2023, the petition filed by the defendants for
accepting the written statement was allowed subject to payment of
cost of Rs. 100/-. After payment of cost on 06.03.2023, the written
statement of defendants was accepted. Then issues were settled on
05.07.2023. P.W.1 was examined on behalf of the plaintiff on
17.11.2023 but his cross-examination was not completed by the
defendant in spite of several adjournments. On 04.04.2024, the
advocate for the defendant filed a memo retiring from the case and
on the same day, the learned trial Court accepting the memo of the
CMP No. 1778 of 2026 Page 3 of 7
//4//
learned counsel for the defendant, discharged P.W.1 and issued
summons to the defendants. On 26.06.2024, defendant Nos.
4,5,11,12,16,9,20 and 14 filed fresh vakalatnama through another
counsel and after several adjournments on 25.04.2025, the learned
trial Court directed that the suit should proceed under Order 17
Rule 2 of the CPC as the defendants were found not taking any
steps in the case and were absent in the Court. On 15.07.2025,
the application filed by defendants No.
5,6,7,4,8,9,12,14,15,16,13,20,21,22,10 & 11 to recall order dated
25.04.2025 was allowed and P.W.2- Asit Kumar Panda was
examined in-chief on that day and cross-examined by the
contesting defendant on the same day. The evidence from the side
of the plaintiff was closed on that day, as he filed a memo to close
his evidence. The case was posted to 11.08.2025 for evidence from
the side of the defendants. The case was adjourned on 11.08.2025,
12.09.2025, 22.10.2025, 29.10.2025, 13.11.2025 on prayer of the
counsel for the defendants for adducing evidence and on
28.11.2025, evidence from the side of the defendants was closed
and the case was posted to 23.12.2025 for argument. Thereafter,
the case was adjourned on 23.12.2025, 02.01.2026, 05.01.2026,
CMP No. 1778 of 2026 Page 4 of 7
//5//
09.01.2026. On 09.01.2026, the petition filed on 28.11.2025 by the
defendant for recall of P.W.1 for his cross-examination was
allowed subject to payment of cost of Rs.500/-. However, cost was
not paid by 22.01.2026, for which the case was adjourned to
23.02.2026, when P.W.1 was further cross-examined by the
Advocate for defendants and the case was posted to 25.03.2026
and thereafter to 04.04.2026 for argument. On 04.04.2026, an
application was filed by the defendants to recall order dated
28.11.2025. This application was allowed on 20.04.2026 subject to
payment of cost of Rs.300/- by 29.04.2026. On 29.04.2026, order
dated 28.11.2025 was recalled and the case was posted to
16.05.2026 for evidence from the side of the defendants. On
prayer of the counsel for the defendants on 16.05.2026, the matter
was adjourned to 19.06.2026. On 19.06.2026, evidence was not
adduced and a time petition was filed by the defendant for
adducing evidence. After perusing the case record, the learned trial
Court rejected the time petition and posted the case to 08.07.2026
for argument, observing that the defendants had taken several
adjournments. On 08.07.2026, argument has been heard in part by
the learned trial Court and the case was adjourned to 21.07.2026
CMP No. 1778 of 2026 Page 5 of 7
//6//
for further argument. As mentioned on instructions, Mr. Biswal,
learned counsel for the Petitioner has submitted that the suit is now
posted to 17.11.2026.
8 . This Court does not as a matter of course direct the learned
trial Court to dispose of any case within a stipulated time by fixing
any time limit, in the absence of compelling circumstances.
9. This is because a Court be it the trial Court or the High
Court is the master of its own roster and has the authority and
liberty to decide as to how best the cases on its Board/roster can be
disposed of expeditiously. In the present case, the facts are tell-
tale. It is apparent from a perusal of the order sheet that the
defendants are delaying disposal of the suit and on many occasions
the time petitions filed by the defendants have been allowed
mechanically by the learned trial Court.
10. The CMP is therefore disposed of requesting the learned
Civil Judge, (Senior Division), Pattamundai to make an endeavor
to dispose of the suit within a period of four months from the date
of receipt of this order and for this purpose not to grant
unnecessary adjournments to any party.
CMP No. 1778 of 2026 Page 6 of 7
//7//
11 . It is however made clear that while refusing to grant
unnecessary adjournments , the learned trial Court should ensure
that no party is deprived from getting due opportunity of hearing.
12. The CMP is disposed of with the aforesaid observations and
directions.
13 . As the CMP has been disposed of without hearing the
Opposite Parties, they are at liberty to apply for modification /
recall of this judgment in case the Petitioner has suppressed
material facts which have resulted in passing of this judgment and
caused prejudice to them.
14 . Copy of the order be communicated to the learned Civil
Judge (Senior Division), Pattamundai by the Registry forthwith.
..
…………….
(Savitri Ratho)
Judge
Orissa High Court, Cuttack
st
Dated the 31 October 2026 /Subhalaxmi
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: SUBHALAXMI PRIYADARSHANI
SAHOO
Reason: Authentication
Location: Orissa High Court, Cuttack
Date: 02-Nov-2026 20:51:40
CMP No. 1778 of 2026 Page 7 of 7