Page 1 of 5. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CMP No.2013 of 2025 1) Bhagyarathi @ Bhagirathi Mahakud ..... Petitioners 2) Madhusudan Mahakud Represented by Adv. - Suryasnata Mohapatra -versus- 1) Naba Kumar Sahu ..... Opposite Parties 2) Nayan Kumar Sahu Represented by Adv. – Mr. D.K. Sahu, AGA CORAM: MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA ORDER 13.01.2026 Order No. 01. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual /Physical Mode). 2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioners as well as learned counsel for the State. Perused the application as well as the prayer made therein. 3. The present application has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India with a prayer to set aside the order dated 03.03.2025 passed in C.S. No.09 of 2014 by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Boudh and order dated 17.11.2025 passed in Civil Revision No. 02 of 2025 thereby confirming the order dated 03.03.2025 by the learned District Judge, Boudh. 4. On perusal of the pleadings it appears that two suits are filed bearing C.S. No.09 of 2014 and C.S. No.09 of 2017, so far as Page 2 of 5. C.S. No.09 of 2014 is concerned, the same was filed at the instance of the Opposite Parties as plaintiffs against the present Petitioners. The first suit was filed with a prayer for grant of decree of perpetual injunction and for recovery of possession if the plaintiffs are found to be disposed of from the suit schedule land. The suit scheduled land as indicated in the suit scheduled reveals that the same is situated in Mouza, Balasinga of Boudh District bearing Mutation Khata No.233/7, Plot No.1702 and Plot No.1705 (Gharabari homestead), measuring Ac. 0.02 decimal each of the total land measuring Ac. 0.04 decimals. 5. Similarly, C.S. No.9 of 2017 was filed at the instance of the present Petitioners against the Opposite Parties and some other persons with a prayer to declare sale deed dated 08.05.2001 and the corresponding Mutation RoR as void and to declare that the plaintiff has got preferential right over the suit land and accordingly they can repurchase to each. Further, a prayer has been made for grant of a decree to notify a date and time before which purchase money shall be paid by the defendant for re- convenience of the suit land. 6. On perusal of the plaint it appears that the suit schedule in the second suit contains Schedule-A and Schedule-B, the properties which are involved in the first suit are part of Schedule- B. In the aforesaid factual backdrop, the Petitioner moved an application under Section 10 of the CPC for stay of the first suit i.e. C.S. No.9 of 2014 pending in the Court of learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Boudh along with an application for analogous hearing of both the suits. Page 3 of 5. 7. The learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Boudh by virtue of order dated 03.03.2025, disposed of both the applications. The the prayer made by the Petitioners was rejected with a finding that both the suits are in no way connected and that the Petitioners have filed this application only to prolong the trial. 8. Being aggrieved by aforesaid order of the learned trial Court, the Petitioners preferred a revision bearing Civil Revision No.02 of 2025 before the learned District Judge, Boudh. Learned District Judge, Boudh, by virtue of judgment dated 17.11.2025, considering the prayer of the Petitioners ultimately dismissed the revision petition. The learned revisional Court after a threadbare discussion on the factual background of both the cases has come to a specific finding that the suits are not on the same subject matter and are not interrelated. As such, it was held that the power under section 10 of CPC to stay the suit could not have been exercised by the learned trial Court. Being aggrieved by such order, the Petitioners approached this Court by filing the present CMP application. 9. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners, on a careful examination of the impugned orders under Annexure- 9 and 10, this Court found that the Petitioners being aggrieved by the rejection of his prayer either to stay C.S. No.9 of 2014 or to hear both the suits are analogously have approached this Court for grant of necessary relief as was prayed before the learned trial Court. On a careful reading under Section 10 of CPC, it is crystal clear that power has been conferred upon the Court to stay the subsequent suit in the event it is found that the issues involved in Page 4 of 5. both the suits are directly and substantially the same, the Parties are same and that the relief sought for is also similar. On a careful analysis of the factual background of both the case, this Court is of the considered view that the test which is required to be applied before exercising the power under Section 10 of CPC has been applied by the learned revisional court and after such examination, the learned revisional court has come to a specific finding that both the suits fail to meet the standard prescribed under Section 10 of CPC. Accordingly, the learned revision Court by virtue of a detailed order rejected the prayer of the Petitioners to either the stay of the suit or for analogous hearing. It is also pertinent to mention here that earlier a similar application was filed before the learned trial Court which was rejected. Thereafter, the Petitioners preferred a CMP before this Court which was registered as CMP No.832 of 2019. A coordinate Bench after due consideration of the prayer made in the factual background of the present suit was not inclined to grant necessary relief. On the contrary the CMP application was disposed of by the learned coordinate Bench by granting liberty to the Petitioners to move an application under Section 151 Cr.P.C. for analogous trial of both the suits, with a further direction to the learned trial Court to pass necessary order in accordance with law. 10. After disposal of the above noted earlier CMP No.832 of 2019 vide order dated 26.08.2019, the Petitioner once again moved an application and the result of such application is the subject matter of challenge in the present CMP application. On a careful scrutiny of both the impugned orders, this Court found that the learned trial Court as well as the revisional Court have Page 5 of 5. considered all the aspects of the matter and they have come to a specific conclusion that the power under Section 10 of CPC cannot be exercised. The learned revisional Court has also held that both the suits cannot be heard analogously. On a query imposed by this Court, the counsel for the Petitioners fairly admitted that so far the first suit i.e. C.S. No.09 of 2014 is concerned, the evidence is closed and the matter is posted for hearing. So far the second suit is concerned, it is posted for recording of the evidence. Although both the suits are pending before the same Court. On a critical analysis of factual background of both the suits as well as the prayer made therein, this Court is of the considered view that the learned Court has rightly refused the prayer made under Section 10 of CPC as well as the prayer for analogous hearing of the suit. While disposing of the present application by not interfering with the impugned order, this Court clarifies that since it has been held that both suits are distinct and different, any decision in the first suit shall not bind the second suit and that the second suit shall be heard and disposed of on its own merits. 11. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the CMP application stands disposed of. ( A.K. Mohapatra ) Judge Sisir Designation: Personal Assistant