Authority: High Court of Orissa at Cuttack

Order Date: 29 August 2026

Case Overview

  • Petitioners: Amaresh Sarkar (Petitioner/Defendant No.3) filed Civil Miscellaneous Petition (CMP) No.1424 of 2026 under Article 227 challenging the order dated 03.08.2026 of the 1st Additional Senior Civil Judge, Cuttack.
  • Opposite Parties: Cuttack Durgabari Samity (Opposite Party No.1) and other respondents.
  • Underlying suits: C.S. No.09 of 2011 (filed by the Samity seeking declaration of right, title, interest and exclusive possession of a parcel of land in Cuttack) and C.S. No.424 of 2022 (filed by Amaresh Sarkar seeking recovery of possession and permanent injunction over the same land).
  • Both suits involve the same suit property, parties and factual questions; the District Judge transferred C.S. No.09 of 2011 to the Senior Division Court to be tried together with C.S. No.424 of 2022, directing a common judgment.
  • Historical background: The land was originally recorded under Khasmahal in favour of Sri Rameswar Nath Suthoo and Sri Motilal Pandit (pattadars). Smt. Chandan Bilasini Dasi, wife of Late Kali Krushna Sarkar, was the darpatadar and paid rent.
  • On 10 September 1967, Smt. Chandan Bilasini Dasi granted a licence to Cuttack Durgabari Samity (then represented by President Sri Paritosh Kumar Bose) to construct a compound wall, mandap, pandal and other structures for religious and cultural functions. The licence stipulated that descendants of the licensor could not interfere with the licensee’s possession and could be cancelled only if prescribed pujas were not performed for three consecutive years.
  • The Samity has since constructed permanent structures (brick‑mortar mandap with RCC roof, iron‑grill gates, store‑room, stage, two shop rooms, borewell, etc.) and claims uninterrupted possession since 1967.
  • Amaresh Sarkar, claiming to be the adopted son and successor of Chandan Bilasini Dasi, obtained recognition of his status from the Supreme Court (Civil Appeal No.2462 of 1977). He contends the licence deed is fabricated, that the licensor only held a life interest under a will and therefore could not transfer the property, and that he revoked the licence on 5 November 2016.
  • During the argument stage of both suits, Sarkar filed an application to mark the certified copy of the judgment and decree in First Appeal No.16 of 1968 (which affirmed his adoption and held that the licensor was not competent to alienate the property) as an exhibit. The trial court rejected the application on 03.08.2026, stating no sufficient reason was provided.
  • The Samity opposed the application, arguing the document was a judgment of this Court, could be relied upon as authority without being marked as an exhibit, and that filing it at the argument stage would deprive it of cross‑examination rights.
  • Both parties cited various precedents (Billa Jagan Mohan Reddy v. Billa Sanjeeva Reddy, Bagai Construction v. Gupta Building Material Store, Pitani Sai Ganesh Kumar v. Pitani Nagamani, etc.) concerning the admissibility of documents after closure of evidence and the discretion of courts under CPC Order VII Rule 14(3), Order VIII Rule 1‑A(3), and inherent powers under Section 151.

Final Outcome

1. The High Court quashed the trial court’s order dated 03.08.2026 rejecting the petition to exhibit the certified copy of the First Appeal judgment.

2. The petition to exhibit the certified copy of the judgment and decree in First Appeal No.16 of 1968 is allowed. The trial court shall receive the document and mark it as an exhibit for Defendant No.3 in C.S. No.09 of 2011 and for the plaintiff in C.S. No.424 of 2022.

3. The marking is subject to any objections by Cuttack Durgabari Samity on relevance, admissibility and evidentiary value under Sections 40‑43 of the Evidence Act; such objections shall be decided by the trial court in the common judgment.

4. The Samity may recall D.W.2 for cross‑examination limited to the admitted document and may lead rebuttal evidence within two weeks of the parties’ appearance before the trial court.

5. Amaresh Sarkar must pay costs of Rs 20,000 to the Samity; payment is a condition precedent to the marking of the document. Failure to pay will revive the impugned order.

6. Both suits shall be heard and disposed of by a common judgment as expeditiously as possible, preferably within three months of the date of this order, without unnecessary adjournments.

7. The observations are confined solely to the question of exhibition of the document; the court does not express any opinion on the competence of the licence or the title issues, which remain for the trial court to determine.

Topics: Evidence Admission, Land Dispute