Page 1 of 3. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CMP No.2071 of 2025 1) Bhupendra Pandia @ Bhupendra Kumar Pandia ..... Petitioners 2) Ankush Pandia@ Ankush Kumar Pandia Represented by Adv. - Trilochan Nanda -versus- Amarendra Kumar Tripathy ..... Opposite Party Represented by Adv. - CORAM: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA ORDER 09.02.2026 Order No. 01. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid mode. 2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioners. Perused the CMP application as well as the prayer made therein. 3. By filing the present application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioners have challenged the order dated 09.10.2025 passed by the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge, Bolangir in Civil Suit No.188 of 2023. 4. Learned counsel for the defendant-Petitioners at the outset contended that the plaintiff in the present suit earlier filed CS No.125 of 2022 with a prayer for grant of injunctive reliefs. During the pendency of the aforesaid suit, an Amin Commissioner was appointed under Order 26 Rule 9 of the CPC. A report was submitted by the Amin Commissioner. Being aggrieved by the report of the Amin Commissioner, the plaintiff has filed a Page 2 of 3. defamation suit against the present Petitioners-defendant which has been registered as C.S No.188 of 2023. 5. Learned counsel for the Petitioners further submitted that during the pendency of the second suit bearing CS No.188 of 2023, an application was moved on behalf of the defendant- Petitioners on 29.07.2024 under Section 10 of the CPC with a prayer for stay of the suit. Learned counsel for the Petitioners further contended that the parties in both suits are same and the subject matter of the dispute is also same. Therefore, the defendants filed an application under Section 10 of the CPC for stay of the further proceeding in the second (subsequent) suit. Such application having been rejected by the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge, Bolangir vide his order dated 09.10.2025 at Annexure-1, the Petitioner has approached this court by filing the present CMP application. 6. On perusal of the order dated 09.10.2025 at Annexure-1, this Court observes that the learned trial court has duly considered the application of the Petitioner under Section 10 of the CPC. It further appears that while considering such application under Section 10 of the CPC the learned trial court has applied the correct principle of law to determine as to whether the subsequent suit is to be stayed or not. It is needless to mention here that the principle governing res judicata under Section 11 of the CPC would also be applicable for stay of the subsequent suit on an application filed under Section 10 of the CPC. Since, the prayer in both the suits are substantially different and both suits are based on different cause of action, the learned trial court by virtue of a detailed order has come to a conclusion that the subsequent suit Page 3 of 3. could not have been stayed under Section 10 of the CPC. 7. On a careful analysis of the impugned order dated 09.10.2025, this Court found no illegality in such order. Therefore, the same does not call for any interference by this Court at this stage. Accordingly, this Court refuses to interfere with the impugned order dated 09.10.2025 at Annexure-1. However, taking into consideration the fact that the parties are same and the suits are inter-connected, this Court grants liberty to the Petitioners to move an application before the learned District Judge, Balangir with a prayer for trial of both the suits by a Single Court. Further, it is directed that in the event any such application is filed and the same is allowed, the learned trial court shall do well to try both the suits together that is one after the other and if possible an attempt shall be made to record evidence in both the suits simultaneously. 8. With the aforesaid observations/ directions, the CMP application stands disposed of. ( Aditya Kumar Mohapatra ) Judge Anil Designation: Junior Stenographer