Page 1 of 5. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CMP No.76 of 2026 Smt. Tillotama Parida & Ors. ..... Petitioners Represented by Adv. - Sumit Kumar Mohanty -versus- Sri Sarabindu Parida and others ..... Opposite Parties Represented by Adv. - Amit Prasad Bose, D.S. Sahoo, D.K. Sethy, A. Prasad (Caveators) CORAM: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA ORDER 29.01.2026 Order No. 03. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid mode. 2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioners as well as Mr. A.P. Bose, learned Senior Counsel for the Opposite Parties. Perused the CMP application as well as the prayer made therein. 3. The defendant-Petitioners in C.S. No.8 of 2016 has approached this Court by filing the present application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, thereby challenging order dated 18.11.2025 by the learned Addl. Civil Judge (S.D.) Baripada. 4. On perusal of the record, it appears that the plaintiff-Opposite Page 2 of 5. Party No.1 filed a suit for partition in which the Petitioner was a defendant. It is stated by the learned counsel for the Petitioners that during the pendency of a suit an application was filed under Section 151 of CPC to include a property which was left out from the common hotchpotch. He further submitted that since the suit is for partition of the joint family property, the plaintiff is under legal obligation to include all the properties from the common hotchpotch while approaching the Court for partition of the joint family properties. However, in the present case the property recorded vide consolidation Khata No.223 pertaining to Mouza-Agria was left out of the common hotchpotch. As such, the defendant was compelled to file an application under Section 151 of CPC to include that property in the suit scheduled land. Such application of the defendants-Petitioners was objected to by the plaintiff. Finally, by order dated 18.11.2025 at Annexure-1 the learned Addl. Civil Judge (S.D.) Baripada rejected the prayer of the Petitioners on the ground that the plaintiff is the master of the suit and that the defendants have not raised the fact of exclusion of certain joint family properties in their written statement. Moreover, the learned trial Court has also observed that at a later stage, i.e. after final adjudication of the suit if it is proved that the plaintiffs have left out certain joint family properties, the enforceability of the judgment and decree obtained the suit shall be decided on its own merits on the point of non-inclusion of certain joint family properties by the plaintiffs. Finally, the learned trial Court has declined to entertain the application of the Petitioners under Section 151 of CPC at the stage of argument particularly on the ground that the same is not maintainable. Page 3 of 5. 5. Mr. A.P. Bose, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the plaintiffs-Opposite Parties on the other hand objected to the prayer made in the present application. In course of his argument, learned senior counsel for the plaintiffs-Opposite Parties submitted that the learned trial Court has not committed any illegality by passing order dated 18.11.2025. He further submitted that the application for inclusion of the joint family properties in the suit scheduled under Section 151 of CPC was filed at the stage of argument. Therefore, the learned trial Court has not committed any illegality in rejecting such application. He further raised the question with regard to the maintainability of an application under Section 151 of CPC as the defendants have not prayed for amendment of the written statement by filing an application under order 6 Rule-17 of CPC. On the aforesaid ground, learned senior counsel for the plaintiffs-Opposite Parties objected to the prayer made by the defendants in the present CMP application. 6. Having heard the learned counsels appearing for both sides, on a careful examination of the background facts, further on a close scrutiny of order dated 18.11.2025, this Court observed that the defendants have sought for inclusion of certain alleged joint family lands by filing application under Section 151 of CPC. This Court is of the considered view that such properties cannot be included without amending the W.S. Moreover, no such prayer has been made before the learned trial Court under order 6 Rule-17 of CPC for amendment of the W.S. As such, this Court has no hesitation in coming to a conclusion that the application filed under Section 151 of CPC seeking inclusion of certain joint family land is not maintainable in law. Hence, this Court finds no reason to interfere Page 4 of 5. with order dated 18.11.2025. 7. This Court would like to further observed that the learned trial Court while rejecting the prayer of the Petitioners made under Section 151 of CPC, has also categorically observed that if later even after final adjudication of the suit it is proved that plaintiffs have left out certain joint family properties, the enforceability of the judgment and decree obtained in the suit shall be decided on its own merit on the point of non-inclusion of certain joint family properties by the plaintiffs. In view of the aforesaid specific finding, this Court finds no reason to interfere with the impugned order. However, taking into consideration the fact that the W.S. has not been amended and on the request of the learned counsel for the defendants, she is granted an opportunity to move an application under order 6 Rule-17 of CPC. In such eventuality, subject to the provision contained in order 6 Rule-17 of CPC, the learned trial Court shall pass necessary orders thereon. Further, considering the fact that the suit is of the year 2016, the learned trial Court shall make every endeavor to expedite the trial and conclude the same as expeditiously as possible. Both sides are directed to cooperate with the learned trial Court for an early disposal of the suit by not seeking any unnecessary adjournments in the suit. 8. With the aforesaid observations/directions, the CMP application stands disposed of. ( Aditya Kumar Mohapatra ) Judge Page 5 of 5. S.K. Rout