p. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CMP No.424 of 2025 Smt. Supriya Swain …. Petitioner Mr. S.K. Pradhan-2, Advocate -Versus- Rashmi Ranjan Jena …. Opposite Party None CORAM: MR. JUSTICE R.K. PATTANAIK Order No. ORDER 30.04.2025 01. 1. Heard Mr. Pradhan, learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. No notice is issued to the opposite party as the matter is disposed of at the stage of admission. 3. Instant petition is filed by the petitioner challenging the impugned order dated 24th February, 2025 in CS No.639 of 2014 as at Annexure-5 by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bhubaneswar for having declined to recall her for further examination to exhibit certain documents including signatures in sale deeds, such as, Exts. Nos.5, 6, 7 and 8 on the grounds stated. 4. The suit is at the instance of the petitioner seeking declaration of the sale deeds in question and cancellation of the same with permanent injunction restraining the other side from disturbing her possession vis-à-vis the suit schedule property. As it appears, the petitioner was examined as P.W.1 but thereafter, an application dated 22nd October, 2024 was filed for a direction to be recalled for the purposes stated. No objection was received from p. 2 the opposite party and considering the same, learned court below allowed the recall by order dated 29th January, 2025 but thereafter, declined it by another order dated 24th February, 2025. The submission of Mr. Pradhan, learned counsel for the petitioner is that learned court below could not have even exercised powers under Section 151 CPC to recall the order dated 29th January, 2025, hence, therefore, the impugned order i.e. Annexure-5 is liable to be set aside. 5. The opposite party has filed the WS, a copy of which is at Annexure-2. In fact, the petitioner alleged fraud against the opposite party towards disposal of the suit schedule property, hence, the relief seeking cancellation of the sale deeds, as made to reveal from Annexure-1. As earlier stated, an application to recall the petitioner was moved in order to mark the relevant documents as exhibits including the LTIs of the sale deeds in question. The Court is of the view that such recall of P.W.1 having been allowed, learned court below could not have without any reason declined the same with the impugned order i.e. Annexure-5. On a reading of the impugned order dated 24th February, 2025, the Court does not find any reason being assigned recalling the previous order dated 29th January, 2025. It is not that a power under Section 151 CPC is to be exercised without justification or reason. It is not revealed from Annexure-5 as to what weighed in the mind of learned court below denying the petitioner to mark the documents when it was allowed earlier by order dated 29th January, 2025. Having said that, since suo moto power has been exercised by learned court below recalling the order dated 29th January, 2025 having allowed the petitioner to re-examine herself and mark the documents as exhibits, it cannot be sustained in law, hence, to be set at naught. 6. Accordingly, it is ordered. p. 3 7. In the result, the CMP stands allowed. As a necessary corollary, the impugned order dated 24th February, 2025 as at Annexure-5 in CS No.639 of 2014 by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bhubaneswar is hereby set aside with a direction to permit to the petitioner to re-examine herself and mark the exhibits which was allowed pursuant to the order dated 29th January, 2025 and thereafter, to proceed to dispose of the suit according to law. In the circumstances, however, there is no order as to costs. 8. Urgent certified copy of this order be issued as per rules. (R.K. Pattanaik) Judge TUDU