IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK RSA No. 55 of 2004 Hemalata Dibya and others ..... Appellants Mr. D.P. Mohanty, Advocate -versus- Bhikari Charan Nayak and others ..... Respondents CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SASHIKANTA MISHRA ORDER 15.07.2026 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode. 2. Heard Mr. D.P. Mohanty, learned counsel for the appellants. 3. This is an appeal against a confirming judgment. The appellants were plaintiffs in T.S. No. 176 of 1980 in the Court of learned Munsif, Jajpur. The suit was filed for declaration of right, title, interest, and confirmation of possession and further declaration that the registered documents are illegal and fraudulent and that the order of the Executive Magistrate under Section 145 Cr.P.C is illegal and wrong. 4. The defendants contested the suit. After analyzing the evidence on record, the trial Court finding no merit in the plaintiffs’ case, dismissed the suit vide judgment passed on 25.08.1990, followed by decree. 5. The plaintiffs carried appeal, which was heard by learned Adhoc Additional District Judge, Fast Track, Jajpur being Title Appeal No. 5 of 1998/ 42 of 1990. The First Appellate Court found no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment. The appeal was thus, dismissed. 6. After hearing Mr. Mohanty, learned counsel for the appellants and Order No. 7. on going through the impugned judgments, this Court finds no substantial question of law involved so as to disturb the concurrent findings of facts. It is well settled that unless it is demonstrated that the concurrent findings of fact are perverse or beyond the evidence on record etc. the Second Appellate Court should be slow to interfere. That apart, it is fairly submitted by Mr. Mohanty that in the meantime, the defendants had also filed a money suit being Money Suit No. 3 of 1981 in the Court of Subordinate Judge, Jajpur against the plaintiffs claiming recovery of the money paid in excess by them towards payment of loan dues. Said suit was decreed. The plaintiffs carried appeal in F.A. No. 121/1990 before this Court. By judgment passed on 06.04.2021, the appeal was dismissed. Thus, the stand taken by the plaintiffs in the suit being substantially same as in the present appeal, the judgment of this Court in the First Appeal shall operate as res judicata. 7. For all these reasons therefore, this Court finds no reason to entertain the appeal. The Second Appel stands thus, dismissed being not admitted. (Sashikanta Mishra) Judge A.K. Rana Designation: P.A.