IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK C.M.P. No.2037 of 2025 Union of India …. Petitioner Mr. A.K. Mohanty, Senior Panel Counsel for Union of India -versus- Kanchan Panda and another …. Opposite Parties Mr. S. Mishra, Advocate for O.P. Nos.1 & 2 CORAM: JUSTICE B. P. ROUTRAY ORDER 09.01.2026 Order No. 01. 1. Heard Mr. A.K. Mohanty, learned Senior Panel Counsel for the Petitioner-Union of India. Mr. S. Mishra, learned counsel appears for the Opposite Parties. 2. Present C.M.P. is directed against order dated 17.11.2025 of the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.), 1st Court, Cuttack in C.S. No.13 of 2015, wherein the prayer of the Defendant under Order 26 Rule 9, C.P.C. to appoint Survey Knowing Commissioner has been refused. 3. Present Opposite Parties being the Plaintiffs filed the suit against the Petitioner (Defendant) praying for permanent injunction and consequential reliefs. In course of evidence, the Plaintiffs have produced demarcation report prepared by the Tahasildar in respect of the suit land, which has been marked as Ext.14. After completion of evidence and at the stage of argument, now the Defendant has come up with a prayer to appoint Survey Knowing Commissioner for measurement of the suit land under the provisions contained in Order 26 Rule 9 Digitally Signed Signed by: BASANTA KUMAR BARIK Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 09-Jan-2026 18:54:17 Signature Not Verified C.P.C. The said prayer has been refused by the learned trial court on the ground that no purpose would be fulfilled by such appointment of Survey Knowing Commissioner to measure the suit land and rather the same will linger the proceeding. 4. It is seen from the record that admittedly the suit is at the stage of argument and the prayer in the suit is for perpetual injunction restraining the Defendant from coming to suit schedule “A” land and other consequential reliefs. It is also not disputed regarding exhibition of demarcation report made by the Tahasildar on the request of the Plaintiffs. When the nature of the suit is for permanent injunction and the Defendant has not disputed the right of the Plaintiffs over the suit land, the question of local investigation or measurement of the same in the present context of dispute is found unnecessary. Moreover, the demarcation report as exhibited on behalf of the Plaintiffs having not been challenged before any higher forum by the Defendant, now he cannot dispute the same otherwise by seeking demarcation of the suit land through the court appointed Survey Knowing Commissioner. The purpose of the Defendant is thus clear to linger the proceeding when the suit is at the stage of argument. 5. Thus, no infirmity is seen in the impugned order and the C.M.P. is resultantly dismissed. ( B.P. Routray) Judge B.K. Barik