Orissa High Court
WP(C)/12764/2026 of ANANTA PRADHAN Vs RATNAKAR PRADHAN on 7 July 2026
of 2026 Page 1 of 4 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.12764 of 2026 Ananta Pradhan … ... Petitioner -Versus- Ratnakar Pradhan and others ... … Opp. Parties Advocates appeared in this case: For Petitioner : Mr. Amit Prasad Bose For Opp. Parties : Mr. Niranjan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.12764 of 2026
Ananta Pradhan
… ...
Petitioner
-Versus-
Ratnakar Pradhan and
others
... …
Opp. Parties
Advocates appeared in this case:
For Petitioner : Mr. Amit Prasad Bose
For Opp. Parties : Mr. Niranjan Panda-4
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MRUGANKA SEKHAR SAHOO
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
2
Decisions referred to
In this index
1
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.
J U D G M E N T
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date of Hearing and Judgment: 7th July, 2026 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MRUGANKA SEKHAR SAHOO, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. He submits that the petitioner is son, co-sharer of the joint Hindu family property and he has not been made a party to the suit seeking partition before the learned trial court.
2. It is submitted that the petitioner herein is a necessary party before the learned Senior Civil Judge, Soro but was not made a party in the suit for partition. It is submitted that the issue involved is already covered by the judgment dated 06.04.2026 delivered by this Court in W.P.(C) No.31132 of 2025 (Madhuchanda Sahani @ Mohanty and others v. Saroj Kumar Dani and others) as the issues are similar.
It is submitted that the petitioner herein was not made a party to the suit, further the notices issued to some of the defendants in the suit were not sufficient as the service return was not ensured before accepting the ‘compromise’ between the parties to dispose of the suit.
3. Upon notice issued by order dated 02.05.2026 being sufficient opposite parties have appeared through Mr. Panda, learned advocate. Mr. Panda being present in VC is heard at length.
4. Leave to appeal is granted. I.A. No.7733 of 2026 is favoured and disposed of.
5. In response to the observation made at paragraph-4 of order dated 02.05.2026, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the opposite party that the contentions raised by the petitioner as argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be denied to the extent that the present petitioner is not a party in C.S. No.372/649 of 2023.
Regarding the notices issued to some of the defendants in the said suit not being sufficient as service return was not ensured by the learned Sr. Civil Judge, Soro, it is submitted by Mr. Panda, learned counsel for the opposite party that the said submission is apparently correct.
6. Learned counsel for the opposite party relies on the decision of this Court in CRP No.17 of 2023 : Baman Charan Swain v. Prabhat Kumar Swain and others disposed of on 05.01.2026 reported in (2026) I CLR 1236. In considered opinion of this Court the said decision is of no avail to the opposite party.
7. In Madhuchanda Sahani @ Mohanty and others v. Saroj Kumar Dani and others: W.P.(C) No.31132 of 2025 disposed of by this Court on 06.04.2026 relying on the judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court in State of Punjab v. Jalour Singh : (2008) 2 SCC 660 and Bhargavi Constructions v. Kothakapu Muthyam Reddy : (2018) 13 SCC 480, the following has been held:
“8. In view of the above, applying the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab (supra) which have been subsequently reiterated/followed in Bhargavi Constructions v. Kothakapu Muthyam Reddy (supra), it has to be held that notices on the writ petitioners- defendants before the learned Lok Adalat, after notices were issued by the Court, were not recorded to be sufficient. It would go to the root of the issue as the notice was not sufficient before filing of the compromise petition.”
8. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, in considered view of this Court in view of the petitioner not being a party in C.S. No. 372/649 of 2023 before the learned Sr. Civil Judge, Soro which has been disposed of in Lok Adalat, goes to the root of the matter and the judgment and decree dated 09.12.2023 and 24.11.2023 gets vitiated and the same has to be and is set aside and quashed.
The C.S. No. 372/649 of 2023 is restored to file of the court of learned Sr. Civil Judge, Soro.
9. Learned counsel for the opposite party seeks for direction regarding the interim order dated 02.05.2026 passed in I.A. No.7498 of 2026. In view of the setting aside of the judgement and decree as directed above, the interim order merges with the final order.
10. The petitioner shall appear before the learned Sr. Civil Judge, Soro on 03.08.2026. On the said date, the present opposite parties shall file appropriate application for impleading the present petitioner as a defendant. If no such application is filed, by the direction of this Court, the petitioner shall be arrayed as defendant no.3 in the said suit. The defendant no.3 shall have the opportunity of filing written statement and adducing evidence in accordance with law.
The learned Sr. Civil Judge, Soro shall proceed with adjudication of the civil suit in accordance with law by giving opportunity to all the parties to the litigation.
11. The writ petition is allowed and disposed of with the above observations/directions.
Urgent certified copy be issued as per rules.
(Mruganka Sekhar Sahoo) Judge
Orissa High Court, Cuttack The 7th July, 2026/Radha
Digitally Signed Signed by: RADHARANI JENA Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 14-Jul-2026 12:24:30 Signature Not Verified