CMP/851/2023 of SUVENDRA MOHANTY Vs JAGAT JYOTI MOHANTY on 1 September 2026

1. Suvendra Mohanty

2. Bishnupriya Mohanty

….

Petitioners -versus-

1. Jagat Jyoti Mohanty

2. Srikanta Mohanty

3. Charubala Pattanaik

….

Opposite Parties

Advocates who has appeared in this case through Hybrid Mode:

For Petitioner

: Mr. Suvendu Senapati,

Advocate on behalf of Mr.

Hrudananda Mohapatra,

Advocate

For Opposite Parties : Mr. Gourav Mohanty, Advocate (for Opp. Party No. 1,2 & 3)

Dr. Janmejaya Ray, Advocate (for Opp. Party No. 4,5,6 & 7)

CORAM:

HON’BLE MISS JUSTICE SAVITRI RATHO

………………………………………………….…………………….. Date of Hearing & Judgment: 01.09.2026 …………………………………………………………………………

Savitri Ratho, J. This CMP has been filed by the Defendant Nos. 18 and 19 challenging the order dated 19.07.2023 passed by the learned CMP/851/2023 ODHC010600112023 2026:OHC:120

Senior Civil Judge Khurda in Civil Suit No. 10 of 2013 rejecting the petition filed by them for necessary permission for filing of written statement. BACKGROUND FACTS

2. Defendant Nos. 18 and 19 were Plaintiff Nos. 4 and 5 in C.S No. 10/2013. Pursuant to an application filed under Order 1 Rule 10 of the CPC by the Plaintiff Nos. 1 to 3, they were transposed as Defendant Nos. 18 and 19 in the suit by order dated 20.08.2022. After such transposition, they filed an application dated 17.05.2023 seeking permission to file their written statement as defendants. The Court dismissed the application holding that the order dated 20.08.2022 allowing the transposition has not been challenged. Hence, as their pleadings in the plaint are already there on record, there is no need for filing of written statement by them. IMPUGNED ORDER

3. While rejecting the prayer of the Defendant Nos. 18 and 19, the learned trial Court has observed as follows: “Heard on the petition, going through the case records well as order passed by this Court on 20.08.2022, it is very clear on the order of the Court that in between the present petitioners and the plaintiff nos. 1 to 3, there is no conflict of interest, but it apparently reveals from the case record that present petitioners have not cooperate the plaintiff no.1 to 3. Furthermore, at that time the present petitioners have not raised any objection. Hence, to avoid the inconvenience as because there is no conflict in interest the co-plaintiff (present petitioner) is transposed to the category of prof. defendantno.18 and

19. The prof. defendants are initially the co-plaintiff and have filed the joint plaint. So, he cannot go beyond his pleading and the plaint averments is his pleading. Hence, when the present petitioners is not challenged the order of the Court dtd.20.12.2022, this Court has found that the present petitioners has already a pleading which is the plaint story. So, there is no need of filing of written statement. Hence, the petition is rejected being devoid of any merits.”

4. While issuing notice on 04.09.2023, this Court had stayed further proceedings in the suit.

SUBMISSIONS

PETITIONERS

5. Mr. Suvendu Senapati, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Mr. H. Mohapatra, learning counsel for the Petitioners prays for an adjournment stating that Mr. Mohapatra, learned counsel is out of station.

6. In view of the nature of order I propose to pass and as further proceedings in the suit which is of the year 2013 have been stayed and the learned counsel for the Opposite Parties submit that they do not have any objection if the CMP is allowed, I am not inclined to adjourn the CMP.

7. It has been stated in the CMP that it is the settled position of law that a defendant in a suit may admit the plaint averments or may rebut the same. If these defendants do not have any independent pleading in respect of the plaint averments, they will not get an opportunity to lead evidence as per their pleadings as defendants. Hence, by rejecting the application their right to adduce evidence as per the pleading has been taken away by the impugned order. As a Party cannot adduce evidence beyond his/her pleading(s), not allowing the petitioners to file written statement in the suit will take away their valuable right to adduce evidence which is necessary as they do not admit the pleadings of the plaintiffs. OPPOSITE PARTIES

8. Mr. G. Mohanty, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Opposite Party Nos. 1, 2 and 3 who are the plaintiffs in the suit submits that since the further proceedings in the suit have been stayed the matter may be disposed of finally today. He also submits that Opposite Party No.1 to 3 have no objection, if the CMP is allowed and opportunity is granted to the petitioners to file their written statement.

9. An objection had been filed by the Defendant Nos. 1 to 4 in the suit (present Opposite Party Nos. 4, 5, 6 and 7) stating that on 20.08.2022, the Petitioners, i.e. defendant Nos. 18 and 19 had been placed in the category of proforma defendants and proforma defendants have only the right to be present during the proceeding and they cannot be allowed to file written statement against the plaintiff. But Dr. J. Ray, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Opposite Party Nos. 4, 5, 6 and 7 (Defendant Nos. 1 to 4) submits that these Opposite Parties have no objections if the Petitioner (Defendant Nos. 18 and 19) are permitted to file written statement. ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION

10. It is not disputed that the Petitioners who were initially arrayed as Plaintiff Nos. 4 and 5 in C.S. No.10 of 2013 were subsequently transposed from the category of plaintiffs to Defendant Nos.18 and 19, by order dated 20.08.2022 and after being transposed to defendant No. l8 & 19, the Petitioners filed an application on

17.05.2023 seeking permission to allow them to file written statements and the trial court rejected the petition mainly on the ground that the order dated 20.08.2022 allowing their transposition has not been challenged.

11. That the right to file written statement is not merely a procedural formality. Rather it is an essential component of the principles of natural justice, as it affords the parties a meaningful opportunity to place their reply/defence on record for effective adjudication.

12. It is well settled law that once a party is transposed from one side of the litigation to the other, its altered procedural position cannot be ignored while considering the manner in which such party is to participate in the further proceedings.

13. The mere fact that the order of transposition was not challenged cannot constitute a valid ground for refusing to file their written statement on the other hand, as the Petitioners were transposed as Defendants, they deserve an opportunity to file a written statement.

14. The rights and obligations of the party have to be considered in the context of the pleadings, the nature of the suit, and the reliefs claimed by the parties. In the present case, the Petitioners should not be left without an opportunity to place their stand on record. When the Opposite Parties have no objection if the petitioners are allowed to file their written statement, I find no reason as to why the impugned order should not be set aside. No prejudice would be caused to the other parties if the Petitioners are permitted to file their written statement as they can cross examine the witnesses, if any, examined by the Petitioners.

15. In view of the above discussion, the CMP is allowed.

16. Order dated 19.07.2023 passed in Civil Suit No. 10 of 2013 is set aside. The Petitioners are granted time till 21.09.2026 for filing of their written statement.

17. Interim order passed earlier stands vacated.

18. All the pending interim applications stand disposed of.

19. Copy of this order be communicated to the learned trial Court forthwith.

………………….

(Savitri Ratho)

Judge Orissa High Court, Cuttack Dated, the 1st September, 2026/Subhalaxmi Digitally Signed Signed by: SUBHALAXMI PRIYADARSHANI SAHOO Reason: Authentication Location: Orissa High Court, Cuttack Date: 12-Sep-2026 20:41:32 Signature Not Verified