Page 1 of 4. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CMP No.666 of 2026 Mahesh Chandra Kar ..... Petitioner Represented by Adv. - Sarat Kumar Behera -versus- Gopinath Kar and others ..... Opposite Parties Represented by Adv. – Mr. C.M. Singh, ASC CORAM: MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA ORDER 29.06.2026 Order No. 02. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual /Physical Mode). I.A. No.781 of 2026 2. This is an application filed by the Petitioner seeking condonation of delay in filing the present CMP application. 3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner does not want to press this application. 4. Accordingly, the I.A. is disposed of as not pressed. I.A. No.783 of 2026 5. This is an application again by the Petitioner seeking exemption from filing of the entire case record under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. Page 2 of 4. 6. On a careful examination such trial, this Court is of the view that such prayer shall be considered at an appropriate stage and accordingly, the I.A. stands disposed of. I.A. No.782 of 2026 7. This is an application at the instance of the Petitioner with a prayer for exemption from filing of certified copies of annexures, typed copies, legible copies and translated copies of the documents. On a careful consideration of the aforesaid I.A., this Court found that no specific prayer has been made therein. Accordingly, this Court holds that the same is not maintainable. liberty is granted to the Petitioner to move a specific application with such necessary prayer. 8. Accordingly, the I.A. stands disposed of as not maintainable. CMP No.666 of 2026 9. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner. Perused the CMP application as well as the prayer made therein. 10. The Defendant in T.S. No.360 of 1981 (FD) pending in the Court of learned Civil Judge (Civil Judge), 2nd Court, Cuttack in FD Case No.11/2024 has approached this Court by filing the present CMP application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India thereby challenging the impugned order dated 10.11.2025 at Annexure-1. 11. By virtue of the impugned order, the learned trial Court in the final decree proceeding was pleased to pass direction to the Plaintiff to deposit the cost for appointment of Amin Page 3 of 4. Commissioner and for issuance of writ. 12. Learned counsel for the Petitioner at the outset contended that although the Petitioner filed an objection to the prayer for appointment of Amin Commissioner, a copy of which has been filed along with a present CMP application marked at Annexure-1 (Colly), learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that without taking into consideration the aforesaid objection, the learned trial Court has passed order dated 10.11.2025. Aggrieved by the non- consideration of his objection, the Petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present CMP application. 13. This Court on a careful examination of the learned trial Court of order dated 10.11.2025 at Annexure-1 observed that the learned trial Court has directed the Plaintiff to deposit a cost for appointment of Amin Commissioner and for taking steps for issuance of writ. However, no reason, whatsoever, thereto has been given. The learned trial Court has not taken note of the objection filed by the present writ application by passing order dated 10.11.2025. 14. In the aforesaid factual backdrop, this Court is of the view that orders dated 10.11.2025 is unsustainable in law. Accordingly, the same is hereby set aside. Further, the matter is remanded back to the learned trial Court to consider the matter afresh. Before passing any final order on the petition of the Plaintiff, the learned trial Court shall provide an opportunity of hearing to all concerned and shall take objection filed by the Defendant on the final decree proceeding. Let the entire exercise be concluded within a period of two weeks. Page 4 of 4. 15. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the CMP application stands disposed of. 16. Since this order has been passed without issuing notice to the Opposite Parties, this Court grants liberty to the Opposite Parties to seek for variation/modification of today’s order in the event it is found that the Petitioner has surfaced any material facts as well as made an attempt to listed this Court any factual aspect. ( A.K. Mohapatra ) Judge Sisir Designation: PERSONAL ASSISTANT