Orissa High Court
CMP/1252/2026 of BANANI PATTANAIK Vs AJAYA KETAN RATH on 9 September 2026
of 2 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CMP No. 1252 of 2026 CNR No. ODHC010578602026 Banani Pattanaik ..…... Petitioner (s) Mr. Sanatan Dash, Adv. -Versus- Ajaya Ketan Rath .. .…. Opposite Party (s) Mr. Pranab Ranjan Chhatoi, Adv. CORAM: DR. JUSTICE SANJEEB K PANIGRAHI ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CMP No. 1252 of 2026
CNR No. ODHC010578602026
Banani Pattanaik
..…...
Petitioner (s)
Mr. Sanatan Dash, Adv.
-Versus-
Ajaya Ketan Rath
.. .….
Opposite Party (s)
Mr. Pranab Ranjan Chhatoi, Adv.
CORAM:
DR. JUSTICE SANJEEB K PANIGRAHI
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER
09.09.2026 Order No.
03.
1. This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement.
2. By filing the present CMP, the Petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 02.05.2026 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Banki in I.A. No.1 of 2025 (arising out of C.S. No.67 of 2025) under Annexure-1.
3. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner had filed I.A. No.01 of 2025 under Order 39 Rule 7 of the C.P.C. seeking appointment of a Commissioner for local inspection of the suit land before the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Banki. However, the said I.A. was dismissed vide order dated 02.05.2026 for non-prosecution. He further submits that the Petitioner had also filed a petition seeking adjournment of the hearing of the Digitally Signed Signed by: LITARAM MURMU Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 11-Sep-2026 17:07:12 Signature Not Verified said I.A. However, the learned trial court, instead of adjourning the matter, dismissed the petitions filed under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 and Order 39 Rule 7 of the C.P.C.
5. Learned counsel for the Opposite Party submits that, challenging the order dated 02.05.2026, the Petitioner had preferred F.A.O. No.42 of 2026 before the learned District Judge, Cuttack, which was allowed and the said order was set aside.
6. In view of the above and considering the submission made by the learned counsel for the parties, this Court finds that the order dated 02.05.2026 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Banki in I.A. No.1 of 2025 was challenged before the learned District Judge, Cuttack in FAO No.42 of 2026 and the same has already been set aside. In such view of the matter, this Court is not inclined to entertain the present CMP. However, the learned trial Court is directed to rehear the application under Order 39 Rule 7 of the CPC after affording opportunity of hearing to both the parties and pass an appropriate order in accordance with law within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order.
7. Accordingly, the CMP is disposed of.
1. ( Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi)
Judge Murmu Digitally Signed Signed by: LITARAM MURMU Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 11-Sep-2026 17:07:12 Signature Not Verified