Page 1 of 3. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CMP No.208 of 2026 Narendra Kumar Sahoo ..... Petitioner Represented by Adv. - Dwarika Prasad Mohanty -versus- Minakhi Sahoo ..... Opposite Party Represented by Adv. - CORAM: MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA ORDER 03.02.2026 Order No. 01. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual /Physical Mode). 2. Heard learned 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-Petitioner calls in question the validity and legality of order dated 10.12.2025 passed in C.S. No.206 of 2017 by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), L.R., Bhubaneswar. 4. By virtue of the impugned order dated 10.12.2025, the learned trial Court has rejected the prayer of the Plaintiff- Petitioner to recall P.W.3 for his further cross-examination and to introduce certain documents through P.W.3 which were created during inspection of the suit land by the P.W.3. Learned counsel Page 2 of 3. for the Petitioner at the outset contended that the learned trial Court under a misconception law has rejected the prayer of the Petitioner to recall P.W.3. He further submitted that P.W.3 who happens to be a Amin had inspected the suit land and carried out the measurement. Therefore, by recalling the P.W.3 he wanted to introduce the measurement book and other related documents to the P.W.3 in support of his case. However, the learned trial Court without realising the importance of such documents and the evidence of P.W.3 has erroneously rejected the prayer of the Petitioner vide impugned order dated 10.12.2025. Being aggrieved by such order, the Petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present CMP application. 5. On perusal of the impugned order dated 10.12.2025 at Annexure-6 it can be seen that the learned trial Court has at the outset observed that the application filed by the Plaintiff-Petitioner to recall P.W.3 is repetitive in nature. It appears that earlier prayer which was made has been rejected by the learned trial Court. Further, the learned trial Court has observed that the petition filed by the Plaintiff-Petitioner is the second application to recall P.W.3 which was earlier rejected vide order dated 12.04.2024. On perusal of order dated 12.04.2024 at Annexure-4 to the CMP application, this Court found that the application of the Petitioner has been rejected on the ground that the P.W.3 has stated that he had never inspected the suit land in presence of the adjacent land owners, local gentleman, witnesses and the defendants. Page 3 of 3. 6. In view of the aforesaid finding of the learned trial Court which remains un-assailed as of now, this Court is not inclined to entertain the present application and is of the view that the impugned order dated 10.12.2025 does not call for interference by this Court at this stage. However, while disposing of the present CMP application, liberty is granted to the Petitioner to file an application under Order 26 Rule 9 within ten days from today. In the event any such application is filed, the learned trial Court shall consider the same strictly in accordance with law after providing opportunity to all the concerned Parties and dispose of such application within a period of four weeks from the date of filing of such application. 7. With the aforesaid observation/direction, the CMP application stands disposed of. (Aditya Kumar Mohapatra) Judge Sisir Designation: Personal Assistant