IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.9152 of 2023 Pabitra Parida …. Petitioner Mr. N.K. Rath, Advocate -versus- Rabi Narayan Parida & another …. Opp. Parties CORAM: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE CHITTARANJAN DASH Order No. ORDER 15.04.2026 01. 1. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner. 2. By means of this application, the Petitioner seeks the following relief:- “Under the circumstances, as narrated above, it is humbly prayed that your Lordships be graciously pleased to admit this writ petition and issue rule NISI in the nature of mandamus/certiorari or any other writ / writs and thereby direct the 0pp. Parties to show cause as to why the order of the Additional Commissioner, Additional Revisional Court, Bhubaneswar passed in R.P. No.1748/2015 Dated: 31.03.2022 under Section 15 (b) OSS Act, 1958 shall not be quashed and thereby allowing the Revision Case of the petitioner by recording Hal Plot No. 1881 area Ac 0.040 dec. in favour of the petitioner. And, further be pleased to pass any such other order/orders which would be deemed fit and proper in the circumstances of the case” 3. Mr. Rath, learned counsel for the Petitioner, drew the attention of this Court to the impugned order, wherein it is recorded that, during the course of submission of argument, the Opp. Party submitted the written note, and produced certain documents before the Court, on the basis of which the impugned order came to be passed. On the contrary, the Petitioner did not have access to the records pertaining to Rent Case No. 1559 of 2003 at the relevant time. In the meanwhile, he obtained the same as annexed to the present application. Mr. Rath further submits that had these documents been perused by the learned Additional Commissioner, the fact, the existence thereof cannot be denied, the authority would have arrived at a just and proper conclusion. He also submits that, if an opportunity is granted to the Petitioner, the matter may be reconsidered in the presence of the Opposite Parties, taking into account the document in question, and an appropriate order be passed upon due consideration of Annexure- 3, which is a vital document disclosing the parties in possession and their respective rights over the suit property. 4. Annexure-3, as submitted by Mr. Rath, learned counsel for the Petitioner, is the one which suffers from interpolation and cannot be relied upon. Had this document be brought before the Additional Commissioner, the findings of the court would have been different as claimed. In view of such submissions Mr. Rath, the document in question, if at all would have been brought to the notice of the Additional Commissioner, the same could not have been decided by the commissioner, the appropriate forum being the civil court, as the competent court to declare the document to be proper, authentic or interpolated in accordance with law. 5. In view of the above, as submitted by Mr. Rath, he is at liberty to challenge the aforesaid document in question before the appropriate civil court and ultimately the impugned order can be looked into on the outcome of the suit, if any. 6. The Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of. (Chittaranjan Dash) Judge Bijay