RAJDHANI BUS OWNERS ASSOCIATION, BARAMUNDA, BHUBANESWAR vs SK. KAMALUDDIN

CMP/894/2026
ODHC010374502026
2026:OHC:266
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

CMP No. 894 of 2026
CNR No- ODHC010374502026



(In the matter of an application under Articles 227 of the Constitution
of India, 1950).



Rajdhani Bus Owners Association,
Baramunda, Bhubaneswar
…. Petitioner (s)
-versus-

Sk. Kamaluddin & Ors. …. Opposite Party (s)




:
Advocates appeared in the case through Hybrid Mode

For Petitioner (s) : Mr. Smita Ranjan Patnaik, Adv

For Opposite Party (s) : Mr. Rajeet Roy, Adv.
Mr. S. Sourav, Adv.




CORAM:
HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE SANJEEB K PANIGRAHI



DATE OF HEARING:-03.09.2026
DATE OF JUDGMENT:-30.10.2026


Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi, J.
1. The Petitioner has instituted the present Civil Miscellaneous Petition
under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing the legality,
propriety, and correctness of the order dated 23.04.2026 passed by the
learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Bhubaneswar, in C.S No. 2375 of
2022, whereby the learned Court below without duly considering the
facts and materials available on record and the applicable provisions of
law, rejected the application dated 24.12.2025 filed by the
Signature Not Verified
Page 1

Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Designation: AR-CUM-SR. SECRETARY
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 03-Nov-2026 18:29:09

Petitioner/Plaintiff under Order XVIII Rule 17 of the Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908, seeking recall of P.W.2 for further examination-in-
chief for the purpose of exhibiting a subsequent document, namely, the
Resolution dated 10.11.2025, which is relevant and material for the just
and proper adjudication of the suit.
2.
The Petitioner, being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the aforesaid
order, therefore, seeks interference by this Hon’ble Court in exercise of
its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of
India, in the interest of justice.
I. F ACTUAL M ATRIX OF THE C ASE :
3.
The brief facts of the case are as follows:

(i) The petitioner, Rajdhani Bus Owners’ Association, Baramunda,
Bhubaneswar, is a registered society under the Societies
Registration Act, 1860 and has its own Bye-laws governing the
constitution and functioning of its Executive Committee.
(ii) Under the Bye-laws, the Executive Committee of the Association
is to be constituted periodically through
election/selection/nomination. A General Body Meeting was held
on 28.09.2022, whereafter 11.10.2022 was fixed for constitution of
a new Executive Committee.
(iii) On 11.10.2022, according to the petitioner, a new Executive
Committee was constituted in the presence of the majority
members. Surendra Kumar Pradhan was elected President, Sunil
Kumar Mohanty and Ranjan Mahala as Vice-Presidents, and
Signature Not Verified
Page 2

Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Designation: AR-CUM-SR. SECRETARY
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 03-Nov-2026 18:29:09

Tusharkanta Acharya as General Secretary, along with other
Executive Committee members.
(iv) The petitioner alleges that Opposite Party Nos.1 to 3, who had
held office in the previous Executive Committee, were not elected
to the newly constituted Committee and thereafter created
disturbance in the functioning of the Association. It is further the
petitioner’s case that Opposite Party Nos.4 to 6 supported
Opposite Party Nos.1 to 3 and that attempts were made to
interfere with the administration and affairs of the Association.
(v) On account of the alleged interference and dispute concerning the
management of the Association, the petitioner instituted C.S.
No.2375 of 2022 before the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division),
Bhubaneswar, seeking, inter alia, permanent injunction and other
consequential reliefs.
(vi) The defendants entered appearance and filed their respective
written statements. The Trial Court also passed an interim order
restraining the opposite parties from creating disturbance in the
smooth administration of the Association till final disposal of the
suit. Subsequently, the plaintiff amended the plaint in view of
the stand taken by the defendants regarding the alleged
formation of another Executive Committee. The defendants
thereafter filed additional written statements.

(vii) During the pendency of the suit, the petitioner-Association claims
to have constituted another Executive Committee
on 10.11.2025 for the period 2025–2028. According to the
Signature Not Verified
Page 3

Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Designation: AR-CUM-SR. SECRETARY
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 03-Nov-2026 18:29:09

petitioner, a Resolution dated 10.11.2025, together with a
communication to the Additional District Magistrate,
Bhubaneswar, was sought to be brought on record as subsequent
material relevant to the adjudication of the dispute.

(viii) The petitioner filed an application dated 20.12.2025 seeking to
bring the aforesaid subsequent resolution and communication on
record and thereafter filed an application dated 24.12.2025 under
Order XVIII Rule 17 CPC seeking recall of P.W.2, namely,
Tusharkanta Acharya, General Secretary of the Association, for
further examination-in-chief and for proving the said
documents.

(ix) The petitioner asserts that the documents had come into existence
only on 10.11.2025 and 11.11.2025, after the evidence of the
plaintiff had been closed, and therefore could not have been
produced during the original stage of evidence.
(x) The Trial Court, however, rejected the application dated
24.12.2025 by order dated 23.04.2026. The present CMP has
consequently been filed invoking Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India, seeking quashing of the order dated
23.04.2026 and consequential relief in favour of the petitioner.
(xi) The record further discloses that an earlier application concerning
the same subject had been rejected by the Trial Court
on 20.01.2026, and the opposite parties contend that the
subsequent application under Order XVIII Rule 17 was
substantially similar.
Signature Not Verified
Page 4

Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Designation: AR-CUM-SR. SECRETARY
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 03-Nov-2026 18:29:09

Being aggrieved by the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the Petitioner
has been constrained to approach this Court by way of the present Civil
Miscellaneous Petition.
II. S UBMISSIONS O N B EHALF O F T HE P ETITIONER :
4.
The learned counsel for the Petitioner earnestly made the following

submissions in support of his contentions:

(i) The petitioners assert that the learned Trial Court committed an
error of law and jurisdiction in rejecting the application dated
24.12.2025 under Order XVIII Rule 17 CPC.
(ii) The petitioner submits that the Resolution dated 10.11.2025 is a
subsequent document which came into existence during the
pendency of the suit and was therefore not available at the time
when the plaintiff’s evidence was being recorded. According to
the petitioner, the subsequent Resolution relates directly to the
constitution of the Executive Committee of the Association and is
relevant for proper adjudication of the dispute involved in the
suit.

(iii) The petitioner contends that the subsequent Resolution and the
connected communication had already been sought to be brought
on record through the petition dated 20.12.2025. Since the
documents came into existence after closure of the plaintiff’s
evidence, the petitioner submits that there was sufficient
justification for recalling P.W.2 for the limited purpose of proving
and exhibiting the subsequent documents.
Signature Not Verified
Page 5

Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Designation: AR-CUM-SR. SECRETARY
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 03-Nov-2026 18:29:09

(iv) It is argued that the recall of P.W.2 was necessary for the ends of
justice and that refusal to permit such evidence would cause
serious prejudice to the petitioner. The petitioner further submits
that the Trial Court failed to appreciate the relevance of the
subsequent Resolution and rejected the application without
properly considering the facts and materials placed before it.

(v) The petitioner alleges non-application of mind on the part of the
Trial Court, particularly because the applications dated
20.12.2025 and 24.12.2025 were closely connected and concerned
the subsequent constitution of the Executive Committee.

(vi) The petitioner further submits that the Trial Court proceeded to
decide the application dated 24.12.2025 despite the petitioner’s
request for adjournment in view of the pendency of D-CMP
No.7403 of 2026, which challenged the earlier order dated
20.01.2026.
(vii) The petitioner therefore seeks exercise of the supervisory
jurisdiction of this Court to quash the order dated 23.04.2026 and
permit recall of P.W.2 for proving the subsequent Resolution. The
petitioner also seeks protection against further proceedings in the
suit, contending that otherwise it would suffer irreparable
prejudice.
III. S UBMISSIONS O N B EHALF O F T HE O PPOSITE P ARTY :
5.
Per contra , the learned counsel for the Opp. Party earnestly made the

submission that the present CMP deserves to be rejected in limine.
Signature Not Verified
Page 6

Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Designation: AR-CUM-SR. SECRETARY
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 03-Nov-2026 18:29:09

(i) The Opp. Party submits that the suit was instituted in 2022 and
that the pleadings had already been completed and evidence had
been adduced by both sides. According to the respondents, upon
completion of evidence, the suit had been posted for final
arguments on 05.05.2026.

(ii) The Opp. Party contend that the petitioner thereafter sought to
recall P.W.2 for the purpose of exhibiting the Resolution dated
10.11.2025. The respondents further contends that the Trial Court
rightly rejected the application on the ground that the document
sought to be exhibited had no relevance to the issues involved in
the pending suit.

(iii) It is specifically contended that an earlier application seeking
substantially the same relief had already been rejected by the Trial
Court on 20.01.2026, and that order had not been successfully
challenged before the higher forum. The Opp. Party therefore
contend that the subsequent application under Order XVIII Rule
17 was an attempt to reopen an issue which had already been
considered and rejected.

(iv) The Opp. Party further submit that Order XVIII Rule 17 CPC
cannot be invoked as a matter of right merely to fill up omissions
or lacunae in the evidence already adduced. It is contended that
the application was misconceived in law and that the power
under Order XVIII Rule 17 is discretionary and is intended for
clarification by the Court rather than for permitting a party to
reopen its evidence as a matter of course.
Signature Not Verified
Page 7

Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Designation: AR-CUM-SR. SECRETARY
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 03-Nov-2026 18:29:09

(v) The Opp. Party submit that the Resolution dated 10.11.2025 is a lis
pendens/subsequent document and that there are no
corresponding pleadings in the plaint concerning the said
document or the subsequent event. According to the Opp. Party,
a fact or document which is not founded upon the pleadings
cannot be indirectly introduced into the suit merely through an
application for recall of a witness.
(vi) The Opp. Party allege that the present CMP has been filed
primarily to delay and prolong the proceedings, particularly
when the suit had already reached the stage of arguments. It is
also submitted that the suit was subject to an earlier direction for
expeditious disposal and that further reopening of evidence
would unnecessarily delay its conclusion.
OURT S EASONING AND NALYSIS
IV. C ’ R A :
6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials placed
on record.
7.
The principal question which falls for consideration is whether the
learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bhubaneswar was justified in
rejecting the petitioner’s application dated 24.12.2025 filed under Order
XVIII Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking recall of
P.W.2 for the purpose of exhibiting the Resolution dated 10.11.2025.
8. The petitioner’s case, in substance, is that during the pendency of the
suit the Association constituted a new Executive Committee on
10.11.2025 and that the Resolution relating thereto, along with the
connected communication, was a subsequent document which came
Signature Not Verified
Page 8

Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Designation: AR-CUM-SR. SECRETARY
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 03-Nov-2026 18:29:09

into existence after closure of the plaintiff’s evidence. It is therefore
contended that P.W.2 ought to have been recalled to prove and exhibit
the said documents.
9. The power under Order XVIII Rule 17 CPC is undoubtedly available to
the Court to recall a witness who has already been examined. However,
such power is discretionary and is to be exercised for a legitimate
judicial purpose. The provision cannot be treated as conferring an
unfettered right upon a party to reopen its evidence whenever it
considers it convenient or desirable to introduce further material.
10. The object of Order XVIII Rule 17 is to enable the Court to recall a
witness for the purpose of clarification or for such other purpose as may
be necessary for the proper adjudication of the dispute. The provision
cannot ordinarily be employed to permit a party to fill up an omission
in its evidence or to introduce fresh evidence merely because such
evidence was not produced at the appropriate stage.
11. In the present case, it is not in dispute that the plaintiff’s evidence had
already been completed and that the suit had proceeded to the stage of
arguments. The application for recall was therefore made at a highly
advanced stage of the proceeding. The Court is consequently required
to examine not merely whether the proposed document exists, but
whether its reception at that stage is necessary for determining the real
controversy in the suit and whether the exercise of power under Order
XVIII Rule 17 is justified in the facts and circumstances of the case.
12.
The petitioner places reliance upon the fact that the Resolution dated
10.11.2025 was subsequent to the institution of the suit. Mere
Signature Not Verified
Page 9

Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Designation: AR-CUM-SR. SECRETARY
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 03-Nov-2026 18:29:09

subsequent creation of a document, however, does not ipso facto
establish its relevance to the issues already framed and tried. The Court
must examine the nature of the suit, the pleadings of the parties and the
issues requiring adjudication.
13.
The substantive dispute in the suit concerns the constitution and
functioning of the Executive Committee of the Association and the
alleged interference by the defendants with its administration. The
petitioner seeks to introduce the Resolution dated 10.11.2025 relating to
a subsequent Executive Committee constituted for the period 2025-
2028.
14.
The Opp. Party, on the other hand, specifically contend that the said
Resolution constitutes a subsequent event which was neither pleaded
in the plaint nor the subject matter of the original controversy and that
the document has no material bearing upon the issues which had
already been tried. The respondents further point out that an earlier
application seeking similar relief had already been rejected on
20.01.2026.
15.
In such circumstances, the Court is required to maintain the distinction
between a document which is genuinely necessary for determining an
existing issue and a document which seeks to introduce a subsequent
development so as to enlarge or alter the scope of the controversy after
completion of evidence.
16.
It is a settled principle of civil procedure that evidence must ordinarily
be confined to the pleadings and the issues arising therefrom. A party
cannot, by resorting to an application for recall of a witness, indirectly
Signature Not Verified
Page 10

Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Designation: AR-CUM-SR. SECRETARY
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 03-Nov-2026 18:29:09

introduce a new factual foundation which was not part of the
pleadings. The relevance of a subsequent document must therefore be
tested with reference to the existing pleadings and issues.
17. In the present matter, the petitioner has not demonstrated, to the extent
necessary for exercise of the discretionary power under Order XVIII
Rule 17, that the Resolution dated 10.11.2025 is indispensable for
deciding an issue already arising for adjudication in the suit. The mere
assertion that the document relates to the subsequent constitution of
the Executive Committee is insufficient to establish such necessity.
18. The stage at which the application was filed is also of considerable
significance. The evidence had already been completed and the suit had
reached the stage of arguments. The procedural scheme under the Code
contemplates an orderly progression of the trial from pleadings to
issues, evidence and arguments. Permitting a party to reopen evidence
at the stage of final arguments, without demonstrating compelling
necessity, would defeat the principle of expeditious adjudication and
may cause corresponding prejudice to the opposite parties.
19.
The contention of the petitioner that the document was not available
earlier because it came into existence on 10.11.2025 cannot, by itself, be
regarded as sufficient ground for allowing the application. Even where
a document is subsequent in point of time, the Court must still be
satisfied that its reception is legally permissible and materially
necessary for adjudication of the dispute.
20.
Further, the record indicates that an earlier application concerning the
same subject had already been rejected on 20.01.2026. The subsequent
Signature Not Verified
Page 11

Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Designation: AR-CUM-SR. SECRETARY
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 03-Nov-2026 18:29:09

application, though presented on the footing of Order XVIII Rule 17,
was substantially directed towards reopening the plaintiff’s evidence
for the purpose of bringing the same subsequent development on
record. The petitioner has therefore failed to demonstrate any
compelling circumstance warranting a different conclusion from the
one already reached by the Trial Court.

21. The Court also finds substance in the respondents’ objection that Order
XVIII Rule 17 cannot be used as a device for filling up lacunae in the
evidence. The provision is procedural and discretionary in character; it
cannot be converted into a substantive mechanism for enabling a party
to improve its case after completion of evidence.
22.
The submission that refusal to recall P.W.2 would cause irreparable
prejudice to the petitioner also cannot, by itself, justify interference.
Prejudice must be assessed with reference to the issues which the Court
is required to determine. Where the proposed material has not been
shown to be indispensable for deciding the existing controversy, the
mere possibility of prejudice cannot outweigh the requirement of
finality and orderly conduct of the trial.

23. The fact that the petitioner has challenged the order dated 23.04.2026
does not enlarge the scope of the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court.
The question before this Court is not whether the Resolution dated
10.11.2025 exists or whether it may have some bearing upon subsequent
events, but whether the Trial Court committed such an error in refusing
to recall P.W.2 as would warrant interference under Article 227 of the
Constitution.
Signature Not Verified
Page 12

Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Designation: AR-CUM-SR. SECRETARY
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 03-Nov-2026 18:29:09

24. The supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution is
also circumscribed. This Court does not exercise such jurisdiction as an
appellate court for substituting its own view merely because another
view may also be possible. Interference is warranted where the
subordinate Court has acted without jurisdiction, failed to exercise
jurisdiction vested in it, or has committed a patent error of law resulting
in manifest injustice.
25. In the present case, the learned Trial Court had jurisdiction to consider
the application under Order XVIII Rule 17 and exercised that
jurisdiction by examining the relevance of the document and the stage
of the proceeding. The rejection of the application, in the facts placed
before this Court, cannot be characterised as an exercise of jurisdiction
in an arbitrary or perverse manner.
ONCLUSION
V. C :
26. In view of the foregoing analysis and upon an anxious and careful
consideration of the material facts and circumstances of the case, this
Court is of the considered opinion that, having regard to the nature of
the proposed evidence, the advanced stage of the suit, the earlier
rejection of a similar application, and the limited scope of Order XVIII
Rule 17 of the CPC, the petitioner has failed to make out any ground
warranting interference by this Court.
27. The impugned order dated 23.04.2026, therefore, does not suffer from
any jurisdictional error, patent illegality or manifest perversity
warranting interference in exercise of the supervisory jurisdiction of
this Court.
Signature Not Verified
Page 13

Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Designation: AR-CUM-SR. SECRETARY
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 03-Nov-2026 18:29:09

28. It is, however, made clear that the observations made herein are
confined to the prayer for recall of P.W.2 under Order XVIII Rule 17
CPC and shall not be construed as an adjudication upon the ultimate
merits of the substantive dispute pending before the learned Trial
Court.
29. dismissed.
Accordingly, the C.M.P stands

30. Interim order, if any, passed earlier stands vacated.



(Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi)
Judge
Orissa High Court, Cuttack,
TH
Dated the 30 October, 2026.





Signature Not Verified
Page 14

Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Designation: AR-CUM-SR. SECRETARY
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 03-Nov-2026 18:29:09