Page 1 of 3. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CMP No.480 of 2026 Pramod Kumar Patra ..... Petitioner Represented by Sr.Adv. -Mr. S.K.Sarangi along with Mr. Siddhant Sarangi, Adv. -versus- Maruti Estate India Pvt Ltd. & Ors. ..... Opposite Parties Represented by Adv. - CORAM: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA Order No. ORDER 17.03.2026 01. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual /Physical Mode). 2. Heard Mr. S.K. Sarangi, learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner. Perused the CMP application as well as the prayer made therein. 3. By filing the present CMP application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the plaintiff in C.S. No.430 of 2026 which is pending before the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Bhubaneswar has approached this Court with a prayer to quash order dated 21.02.206 at Annexure-2. 4. Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the plaintiff- Petitioner at the outset contended that the plaintiff initially filed the suit with a prayer for declaration of confirmation of possession and Page 2 of 3. for permanent injunction over the suit scheduled land. The abovenoted suit was filed on 20.02.2026 and posted for office note on 21.02.2026. He further submitted that while the office note was prepared, the office raised an objection with regard to the valuation of the suit and payment of ad valorem court fee. 5. Mr. Sarangi, learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner- plaintiff, in course of his argument, referred to the order dated 21.02.2026 at Annexure-2. On perusal of the order dated 21.02.2026, it appears that the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Bhubaneswar has noted that the office note is ready and that, while taking note of the advocate for the plaintiff, there was no issue with regard to the removal of the defect, and the suit was directed to be posted on 27.02.2026 for removal of defect. On the next page of the impugned order, a handwritten noting is found, however it does not bear the signature of the Presiding Officer. 6. Learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner, at this juncture, contended that in view of the settled position of law, the plaintiff is at liberty to file the suit and pay the court fee accordingly. In the instant case, the ground was taken by the learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner is that the Petitioner, who is not a party to the sale deed, questions the validity and genuineness of the sale deed on the ground that the same has been executed by practising fraud and by misusing the power of attorney executed by the plaintiff without his consent. In such view of the matter, learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner contended that the plaintiff is at liberty to proceed with filing of the suit and pay the court fee accordingly. 7. On a careful consideration of the impugned order dated 21.02.2026 at Annexure-2, this Court is of the view that there is only Page 3 of 3. one office noting by the office of the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Bhubaneswar, there is no such order by the learned trial court either accepting or rejecting the valuation of the suit. In such view of the matter, the present CMP application is disposed of by remanding the matter with a direction to the learned trial court to examine the office note after providing an opportunity of hearing to the learned counsel for the plaintiff and pass necessary order thereon within a period of four weeks from the date of communication of a copy of today’s order. 8. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the present CMP application stands disposed of. (A.K. Mohapatra) Judge Rubi