p. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CMP No.649 of 2025 Suresh Kumar Rout …. Petitioner Mr. A.P. Bose, Advocate -Versus- Parikhita Swain and others …. Opposite Parties None CORAM: MR. JUSTICE R.K. PATTANAIK Order No. ORDER 05.05.2025 01. 1. Heard Mr. Bose, learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. No notices are issued to the opposite parties as the matter is disposed of at the stage of admission. 3. Instant petition is filed by the petitioner challenging the correctness of the impugned order dated 7th April, 2025 passed in CS No.265 of 2004 as at Annexure-4 by learned Senior Civil Judge (LR & LTV), Kendrapara on the grounds stated. 4. Mr. Bose, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the sale deed dated 6th July, 1945 as at Annexure-6 was sought to be introduced and received as evidence but upon an objection as per Annexure-5 from the other side, learned court below denied the same vide Annexure-1. It is fairly submitted by Mr. Bose, learned counsel for the petitioner that the said fact regarding the sale deed of the year 1945 was not pleaded in the WS as at Annexure-3 series. p. 2 It is further submitted that amendment to the WS was insisted upon by the petitioner and it was disallowed and confirmed by this Court’s order in CMP No.902 of 2019 dated 25th July, 2023. With such submission of Mr. Bose, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that under the circumstances narrated hereinabove, learned court below should have the marked the sale deed instead of being exhibited to consider the acceptability or otherwise of the same at the time of disposal of the suit. 5. A copy of the order in CMP No.902 of 2019 is produced in Court by Mr. Bose, learned counsel for the petitioner to fairly submit that the amendment to the WS i.e. Annexure-3 series has been declined leaving no other option for the petitioner to exhibit the sale deed dated 6th July, 1945. 6. The suit is for partition and the claim of the petitioner as defendant No.25 is that the sale deed was executed by the father of the plaintiff in favour of the ex-land, namely, Narayan Prasad Samantaray and therefore, the same is to be excluded from partition taking into account the fact that the amendment to the WS stands declined and it has attained finality later to the order of this Court in CMP No.902 of 2019. Recording the submission of Mr. Bose, learned counsel and having regard to the facts pleaded on record, the Court is of the view that even though the sale deed dated 6th July, 1945 i.e. Annexure-6 cannot be exhibited but should be marked as ‘X’, acceptability of which, to be left open for consideration at the time of disposal of the suit as the same would rather serve the purpose and meet the ends of justice. p. 3 7. Accordingly, it is ordered. 8. In the result, the CMP stands disposed of with the direction as aforesaid. 9 . Urgent certified copy of this order be issued as per rules. (R.K. Pattanaik) Judge TUDU Designation: Sr. Stenographer