p. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK RVWPET No.237 OF 2024 Sasmita Jena and others …. Petitioners Mr. Samir Kumar Mishra, Senior Advocate being assisted by Mr. Rakesh Rout, Advocate -versus- Phulamani Bewa and others …. Opp. Parties Mr. Devi Prasad Mohapatra, Advocate (For Opp. Party No.2) CORAM: JUSTICE K.R. MOHAPATRA ORDER Order No. 17.04.2026 02. IA No.500 of 2025 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode. 2. This is an application for condonation of delay of 121 days in filing the Review Petition. 3. Although, in Paragraph-4 of the limitation petition, for condonation for delay, the Plaintiff-Petitioner categorically stated that he was not aware of the order dated 21st March, 2024 passed by this Court in CMP No.868 of 2023, and he came to know about the said order only when he went to the chamber of the Trial Court Advocate for filing of a petition for withdrawal of the suit, but it appears that the Plaintiff-Petitioner had knowledge of such order and the withdrawal petition so filed also indicates that he had knowledge of disposal of the CMP. p. 2 4. Serious objection was also raised by Mr. Mohapatra, learned counsel appearing for the Defendant-Opposite Party No.2 by filing objection to the I.A. 5. Though, the Petitioner has not made out a clear case of condonation of delay of 121 days in filing the Review Petition, but taking into consideration the submission of Mr. Mishra, learned Senior Advocate for the Petitioners that the delay in filing the Review Petition was bona fide, this Court condones the delay in filing the Review Petition. 6. Accordingly, the I.A. is disposed of. (K.R. Mohapatra) Judge 3. RVWPET No.237 OF 2024 1. As prayed for by Mr. Mohapatra, learned counsel for the Opposite Party No.2 and on consent of Mr. Mishra, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the Review Petitioner, the RVWPET is taken up on merit. 2. This RVWPET has been filed assailing the order dated 21st March, 2024 passed in CMP No. 868 of 2023, wherein, this Court did not interfere with the order dated 25th July, 2023 passed by learned Senior Civil Judge, Balasore in C.S. No. 249 of 2011 in rejecting an application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC filed by the Plaintiff-Review Petitioner. 3. Mr. Mishra, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the Petitioners submits that this Court did not interfere with the order impugned in the CMP on the ground that the Defendants had no p. 3 occasion to file any additional written statement as there is no material on record to show that the additional written statement was filed with the leave of learned trial Court. He drew attention to Paragraphs-5 and 6 of the order sought to be reviewed and submits that the order in rejecting the petition for amendment was confirmed by this Court on the ground that no leave was granted to the Defendants to file additional written statement. Hence, the cause of action for filing of the petition for amendment, as stated, did not arise after filing of the additional written statement. 4. Mr. Mohapatra, learned counsel appearing for Opposite Party No.2- Defendant No.2 vehemently refutes the same. It is his submission that the CMP was disposed of without interfering with the order impugned therein not only on the ground as stated by Mr. Mishra, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the Petitioners, but also on other grounds. Elaborating his submission, Mr. Mohapatra, learned counsel submits that this Court, while adjudicating the CMP, had also taken into consideration the pleadings of the Defendants in their written statement more particularly the pleadings regarding non-joinder of necessary party. He also drew attention of this Court to Paragraph-7 of the written statement filed by the Defendants, in which they have clearly stated the names of Madhuri, Tulasi, Urmila and Pramila, who being the co-sharers were not made parties to the suit. Thus, it appears that the Petitioner had sufficient knowledge of non-joinder of necessary parties to the suit from the date of receipt of a copy of the written statement. He further submits that the Plaintiffs are filing amendment petitions of this nature repeatedly when the suit is posted for hearing. The p. 4 Defendants have already closed their argument in the suit. But the suit could not be concluded as on date because of the conduct of the Plaintiffs-Petitioners. Filing of the review petition is yet another attempt to linger the proceedings of the suit. 5. On perusal of the record, it, however, appears from the order sought to be reviewed that this Court at Paragraph-5 of the said order has categorically observed that in the written statement filed by the Defendants, which is at Annexure-3 to the CMP, it has been clearly stated that the suit is barred for non-joinder of the parties, as the co-sharers named in the MS RoR, were not impleaded as parties. 6. Of course, this Court while disposing of the CMP has made an observation that there is no document available on record to show that the additional written statement was filed by the Defendants by taking leave of the Court and it was accepted by the Trial Court. 7. Mr. Mishra, learned Senior Advocate for the Petitioners, however, drew attention to the order dated 29th March, 2023 (Annexure-1) of learned Trial Court, wherein it is indicated that the additional written statement was accepted by entertaining an application filed by the Defendants. 8. Order dated 29th March, 2023 (Annexure-1) passed by learned trial Court accepting the additional written statement was not brought to the notice of this Court at the time of adjudication of the CMP. In view of the said order under Annexure-1 to the review petition, the aforesaid observation of this Court in the order sought to be reviewed appears to be incorrect. But, the said observation does not substantially affect the merit of the said p. 5 order as the Defendants have categorically averred regarding non- joinder of necessary parties at Paragraphs-3 and 7 of their written statement. And the Plaintiffs did not take step at that stage for amendment of the plaint. It was only filed after commencement of trial to incorporate certain properties and also to implead parties. 9. In that view of the matter, this Court finds no merit in the review petition. Accordingly the RVWPET stands dismissed. Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application. (K.R. Mohapatra) Judge Sashikant