Orissa High Court
Sulochana Sahoo & Others vs Mamata Mohanty & Others ... Opp. Parties on 22 August, 2025
ORISSA HIGH COURT : CUTTACK
C.M.P. No.48 of 2020
An application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
***
Sulochana Sahoo & Others ... Petitioners.
-VERSUS-
Mamata Mohanty & Others ... Opp. Parties.
Counsel appeared for the parties:
For the Petitioners : Mr. B. Bhuyan, Sr. Advocate.
Along with Mr. S. Sahoo, Adv.
For the Opp. Parties : Mr. B.S. Tripathy, Sr. Advocate.
P R E S E N T:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANANDA CHANDRA BEHERA Dates of Hearing : 07.07.2025 :: Date of Judgment : 22.08.2025 J UDGMENT ANANDA CHANDRA BEHERA, J.--
1. This Civil Misc. Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950 has been filed by the petitioners CMP No.48 of 2020 Page 1 of 8 (plaintiffs in the suit vide C.S. No.80 of 2012) praying for quashing (setting aside) an impugned order dated 22.11.2019 (Annexure-4) passed in that C.S. No.80 of 2012 by the learned Civil Judge, (Sr. Division), Salipur rejecting the petition dated 17.05.2016 of the petitioners (plaintiffs), which was filed by them (plaintiffs) praying for calling for the deed of cancellation of power of attorney bearing Identity No.471102350 and Document No.40471102285 dated 28.12.2011 from the Sub-
Registrar's office Salipur for the purpose of confrontation of the same to the defendant No.2 during the trial of that suit.
2. The factual backgrounds of this CMP, which prompted the petitioners for filing of the same is that, the petitioners being the plaintiffs filed a suit vide C.S. No.80 of 2012 against the defendants (Opp. Parties in this CMP) praying for a declaration that, the sale deed No.1858 dated 19.10.2011 executed by the defendant Nos.3 & 4 through their attorney holder i.e. defendant No.2 in favour of the defendant No.1 in respect of the "B" schedule suit properties is valid on the ground of fraud along with other relief(s). CMP No.48 of 2020 Page 2 of 8
The defendant Nos.1 to 4 denied the allegations alleged by the plaintiffs against them in their written statement.
So, after framing of the issues, the trial of the suit vide C.S. No.80 of 2012 started and continued, but, at the midst of the trial of the suit i.e. after closure of the evidence of the plaintiffs, when the suit was posted for cross examination to the witnesses of the defendants from the side of the petitioners (plaintiffs), they (petitioners/plaintiffs) filed a petition on 17.05.2016 praying for calling for the registered deed of cancellation of power of attorney (which was registered on dated 28.12.2011) from the Office of the Sub-Registrar, Salipur in order to confront the same to the defendant No.2, to which, the defendants objected stating in their objection that, at this belated stage of trial of the suit, the petition of the plaintiffs is not entertainable, because, the main purpose/intention of the plaintiffs for filing of such petition is only to linger/protract the trial of the suit unnecessarily, that, too, the said deed of cancellation of power of attorney shall in no way helpful to the case of the plaintiffs. CMP No.48 of 2020 Page 3 of 8
3. After hearing from both the sides, the learned Civil Judge, (Sr. Division), Salipur rejected to the petition dated 17.05.2016 of the petitioners (plaintiffs) on dated 22.11.2019 as per Annexure-4 assigning the reasons that, "When the petitioners/plaintiffs have challenged the sale deed dated 19.10.2011, which was executed by the defendant Nos.3 & 4 through their so-called power of attorney holder i.e. defendant No.2 in favour of the defendant No.1 on the basis of the registered deed of power of attorney dated 28.07.2011, then, there is no necessity under law to call for the deed of cancellation of power of attorney dated 28.12.2011, which was executed much after the registration of the sale deed dated 19.10.2011."
4. On being aggrieved with the aforesaid order dated 22.11.2019 (Annexure-4) passed in C.S. No.80 of 2012 by the learned Civil Judge, (Sr. Division), Salipur, the plaintiffs challenged the same by filing this CMP under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950 being the petitioners against the defendants arraying them as Opp. Parties praying for quashing that Annexure-4.
CMP No.48 of 2020 Page 4 of 8
5. I have already heard from the learned Senior Advocate for the petitioners (plaintiffs) and the learned Senior Advocate for the Opp. Parties (defendants).
6. As per the petition dated 17.05.2016 under Order 13, Rule 10 of the CPC, 1908, objection against the same, impugned order dated 22.11.2019 (Annexure-4) and the rival submissions of the learned Senior Advocates of both the sides, the crux of this CMP is that, Whether the impugned order of rejection to the petition dated 17.05.2016 of the petitioners (plaintiffs) passed in C.S. No.80 of 2012 as per Annexure-4 is sustainable under law?
7. As per the provisions of law envisaged under Order 13, Rule 10 of the CPC, 1908, the Court may call for documents or records from any Court or authority during the course of adjudication of the suit, if such records and documents are essential to find out the truth.
So, in order to invoke the provisions of law envisaged under Order 13, Rule 10 of the CPC, 1908, the satisfaction of Court is required that, such records or documents, to which, CMP No.48 of 2020 Page 5 of 8 prayer for calling for the same has been made are essential for proving the case of the party in order to find out the truth of that case.
8. In the suit vide C.S. No.80/2012, the petitioners (plaintiffs) have prayed for declaration of the sale deed No.1858 dated 19.10.2011 executed by the defendant Nos.3 and 4 through their power of attorney holder (defendant No.2) in favour of the defendant No.1 on the strength of registered power of attorney dated 28.07.2011 as void.
The cancellation of registered power of attorney dated 28.12.2011 (calling for of which has been sought for) has been executed much after the registration of the sale deed No.1858 dated 19.10.2011, for which, the deed of cancellation of power of attorney dated 28.12.2011 is in no way essential for proving the case of the plaintiffs in their suit vide C.S. No.80 of 2012.
For which, the above reasons assigned by the learned Civil Judge, (Sr. Division), Salipur in the impugned order dated 22.11.2019 (Annexure-4) for rejection of the petition dated 17.05.2016 under Order 13, Rule 10 of the CPC, 1908 CMP No.48 of 2020 Page 6 of 8 of the petitioners/plaintiffs cannot be held as unreasonable under law.
9. When the reasons assigned by the Trial Court for rejection of the petition under Order 13, Rule 10 of the CPC like the impugned order under Annexure-4 are not unreasonable, then, the question of interfering with the same through a CMP by the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India does not arise.
On this aspect, the propositions of law has already been clarified in the ratio of the following decision:
i. In a case between Mangi Lal Vs. Nandlal Lohariya reported in 2018 (3) Civil Court Cases 572 (Rajasthan) that, summoning of record of other Court--Satisfaction of Court is required regarding record in question and if such satisfaction is arrived at by Court below, then, normally the same should not be interfered with by Supervisory Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
10. As per the discussions and observations made above, when, the reasons assigned by the Trial Court in the impugned order vide Annexure-4 are not unreasonable, then, at this juncture, the question of interfering with the same through this CMP filed by the petitioners/plaintiffs does not arise.
CMP No.48 of 2020 Page 7 of 8
11. Therefore, there is no merit in this CMP filed by the petitioners/plaintiffs. The same must fail.
12. In result, this CMP filed by the petitioners (plaintiffs) is dismissed on contest.
13. The learned Civil Judge, (Sr. Division), Salipur is directed to dispose of the suit vide C.S. No.80 of 2012 as expeditiously as possible within a period of 6 (six) months hence.
14. Registry is directed to communicate this Judgment to the learned Civil Judge, (Sr. Division), Salipur in reference to C.S. No.80 of 2012 immediately.
15. As such, this CMP filed by the petitioners (plaintiffs) is disposed of finally.
(ANANDA CHANDRA BEHERA) JUDGE High Court of Orissa, Cuttack The 22.08,2025// Rati Ranjan Nayak Sr. Stenographer Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: RATI RANJAN NAYAK Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack, India. Date: 25-Aug-2025 16:08:50 CMP No.48 of 2020 Page 8 of 8