Page 1 of 4. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CMP No.51 of 2026 Krushna Chandra Behera and others ..... Petitioners Represented by Adv. – Mr. Prasanta Kumar Satapathy -versus- Sri Bijaya Kumar Roul and the others ..... Opposite Parties CORAM: THE HON’BLE 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. Perused the CMP application as well as the documents annexed thereto. 3. The present CMP application has been filed at the instance of the Petitioners-Plaintiffs by invoking the inherent power of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India with a prayer to set aside the order dated 16.12.2025 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bhadrak in C.S. No.147 of 2006. 4. Learned counsel for the Petitioners, at the outset, contended that C.S. No.147 of 2006 was filed at the instance Page 2 of 4. of the present Petitioners before the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bhadrak with a prayer for grant of a decree declaring that Registered Deed No.513, 514, 515 and 516 dated 09.03.1983 in favour of the Defendant Nos.1 to 4 have been obtained illegally and fraudulently and that the same are void documents. The aforesaid suit was kept pending for almost two decades. He further submitted that. another suit bearing No.353 of 2005 was filed at the instance of the present plaintiffs seeking partition of the suit schedule land. C.S. No.353 of 2005 was disposed of vide judgment dated 24.09.2025 by the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge, Bhadrak dismissing the suit on contest against the defendants. 5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner referring to the judgment in C.S. No.353 of 2005 at Annexure-3, stated before this Court that while dismissing the said suit for partition, the trial court has kept the issue with regard to the validity of the gift deed open and he further submitted the same is to be considered in the present suit. It was not disputed by the learned counsel for the Petitioners that the gift deed was within the knowledge of the plaintiffs and the same is a part of the pleading. Since the present suit is of the year 2006, the validity of the such gift deed has been assailed by the plaintiffs. In the present suit, the plaintiffs filed an application under Order-18 Rule-17 to recall D.W.1 for his Page 3 of 4. further cross-examination with regard to the validity of the gift deed, which is the subject matter of dispute in the present case. Such application having been rejected by the trial court, the Petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present application. 6. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the Petitioners- Plaintiffs and on a careful examination of the documents annexed to the present CMP application and on a close scrutiny of the impugned order dated 16.12.2025 passed in C.S. No.147 of 2006, this Court found that the prayer of the Petitioner for recalling of D.W.1 for further examination has been rejected by the trial court by speaking and reasoned order. The trial court has taken note of all factual and legal aspects of the matter. Eventually, it has come to a conclusion that the application filed by the Petitioners is only to cover the lacuna in the evidence. 7. This Court on a careful analysis of the submission of the learned counsel for the Petitioners and in the backdrop of the present suit, is of the view that the validity of the gift deed which has been assailed in the present suit was well within the knowledge of the plaintiff and the same is the subject matter of the dispute in the present suit. While examining D.W.1 in the year 2014, the plaintiff should have been more careful and should have been asked the material questions, if Page 4 of 4. any, at the time of cross-examination of the D.W.1. In the meantime, more than a decade has elapsed and, at the final stage of argument the present application has been filed by the Petitioners-Plaintiffs to recall D.W.1. Moreover, this Court, on a careful analysis of the provisions contained under Order-18 Rule-17, is of the view that such power conferred upon the trial court is discretionary in nature. Exercise of such discretion having been refused by the trial court, there is no scope on the part of this Court to interfere in such order, particularly in absence of any glaring illegality. 8. In view of the aforesaid reasons and further taking into consideration the fact that the suit is at the argument stage and the same is pending since 2006, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned order. 9. Accordingly, the CMP stands dismissed. (Aditya Kumar Mohapatra) Judge Debasis