Orissa High Court
Shri Braja Kishore Bedamatta vs Deepak Kumar Bedamatta & Others on 26 September, 2025
ORISSA HIGH COURT : CUTTACK
C.R.P. No.25 of 2023
An application for Revision under Section 115 of the Code of
Civil Procedure, 1908.
***
Shri Braja Kishore Bedamatta.
... Petitioner.
-VERSUS-
Deepak Kumar Bedamatta & Others.
... Opposite Parties.
Counsel appeared for the parties:
For the Petitioner : Mr. S.C. Samantaray. Advocate.
For the Opposite Parties : Mr. S.S. Das, Adv.
(For Opp. Party No.1)
P R E S E N T:
HONOURABLE
MR. JUSTICE ANANDA CHANDRA BEHERA
Date of Hearing: 16.09.2025 :: Date of Judgment : 26.09.2025
CRP No.25 of 2023 Page 1 of 12
JUDGMENT
ANANDA CHANDRA BEHERA, J.--
1. This revision under Section 115 of the CPC, 1908 has been filed by the petitioner challenging the impugned order of rejection to his petition under Order 7, Rule 11 read with Section 151 of the CPC, 1908 passed on dated 22.04.2023 (Annexure-3) in I.A. No.16 of 2022 arising out of C.S. No.40 of 2022 by the learned Civil, Judge, Senior Division, Banpur in the District of Khordha.
2. The factual backgrounds of this revision, which prompted the petitioner for filing of the same is that, the Opp. Party No.1 in this revision i.e. Deepak Kumar Bedamatta filed a suit for partition vide C.S. No.40 of 2022 being the sole plaintiff against the petitioner and Opp. Party No.2 to 4 of this revision arraying them as defendants praying for partition of his 1/5th share from LOT Nos.1 and 2 of the suit properties in the plaint stating that, "the suit properties are his ancestral properties, in which, he (plaintiff) has 1/5th share. The suit properties are the joint and undivided properties of the plaintiff and defendants. The said suit properties have not been partitioned between them (plaintiff and defendants) as yet through metes and CRP No.25 of 2023 Page 2 of 12 bounds partition. For which, the suit properties are liable to be partitioned and his 1/5th share therefrom is to be curved out."
3. Having been noticed from the learned Trial Court in the said suit for partition vide C.S. No.40 of 2022 filed by the plaintiff (Deepak Kumar Bedamatta, Opp. Party No.1), the defendant No.1 of the said suit i.e. Braja Kishore Bedamatta filed an I.A. vide I.A. No.16 of 2022 in that suit under Order 7, Rule 11 read with Section 151 of the CPC, 1908 praying for rejection of the plaint of the plaintiff (Deepak Kumar Bedamatta, Opp. Party No.1) on the following grounds i.e.:
i) The suit properties are not liable for partition, as the same are not the ancestral properties of the plaintiff.
ii) The suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable on the ground of suppression of material facts.
iii) The suit of the plaintiff is barred by law of limitation, for which, the suit of the plaintiff is liable to be dismissed.
iv) Non-inclusion of all the family properties into the suit schedule.
4. The plaintiff (Deepak Kumar Bedamatta, Opp. Party No.1) objected to the aforesaid I.A. No.16 of 2022 of the defendant No.1 (Brajakishore Bedamatta) under Order 7, Rule 11 read with CRP No.25 of 2023 Page 3 of 12 Section 151 of the CPC, 1908 stating in his objection that, the I.A. No.16 of 2022 under Order 7, Rule 11 read with Section 151 of the CPC, 1908 for rejection of plaint is not fulfilling any of the essentials of the provisions of Order 7, Rule 11 of the CPC, 1908 entailing for rejection of his plaint. For which, the I.A. No.16 of 2022 filed by the defendant No.1 is liable to be rejected.
5. After hearing from the learned counsels of both the sides, the learned Trial Court rejected to the I.A. No.16 of 2022 under Order 7, Rule 11 read with Section 151 of the CPC, 1908 of the defendant No.1 on dated 22.04.2023 assigning the reasons that, the I.A. No.16 of 2022 of the defendant No.1 is not fulfilling any of the essentials of Order 7, Rule 11 read with Section 151 of the CPC, 1908 for rejection of plaint of the plaintiff.
6. On being aggrieved with the said order of rejection to the I.A. No.16 of 2022 under Order 7, Rule 11 read with Section 151 of the CPC, 1908 of the defendant No.1 passed on dated 22.04.2023 by the learned Trial Court, the defendant No.1 challenged the same filing this revision being the petitioner against the plaintiff arraying him as Opp.Party No.1 and also arraying other defendants as Opp. Party Nos.2 to 4.
CRP No.25 of 2023 Page 4 of 12
7. I have already heard only from the learned counsel for the petitioner (defendant No.1) and the learned counsel for the Opp. Party No.1 (plaintiff), as the Opp. Party Nos.2 to 4 did not participate in the hearing of this Revision.
8. In order to assail the impugned order, during the course of hearing of this revision, the learned Counsel for the petitioner (defendant No.1) relied upon the following decisions :.
I. Bhagirath Prasad Singh Vs. Ram Narayan Rai & Another reported in AIR 2010 Pat. 189.
II. Rajinder Kumar Kapur & Another reported in 2019 S.C.C. Online (Del.) 9472.
III. H. Vasanthi Vs. A. Santha (dead) through LRs and others reported in AIR 2023 (SC) 3873.
IV. Kamini Bewa Vs. Srimati Dei & Others reported in AIR 1990 Orissa 155. V. C.N. Arunachala Mudaliar Vs. C.A.
Muruganatha Mudaliar & Another reported in SCR (1954) 243.
VI. Keshardeo Chamria Vs. Radha Kissen Chamria & Others reported in AIR 1953 (SC) 23.
9. For ascertaining the sustainability and justifiability of the grounds taken by the petitioner (defendant No.1) as indicated above in Para No.3 of this Judgment for rejection of the plaint of the plaintiff (Opp. Party No.1) in the suit vide C.S. No.40 of 2022, CRP No.25 of 2023 Page 5 of 12 the same are discussed and analyzed hereunder serially and chronologically one after another.
10. So far as the first ground raised on behalf of the petitioner (defendant No.1) for rejection of the plaint of the plaintiff (Opp. Party No.1) i.e. the suit properties are not liable for partition, as the same are not the ancestral properties of the plaintiff is concerned;
On this aspect the propositions of law has already been clarified in the ratio of the following decision:
i. In a case between Mrs. Pooja Wasal Vs. Sh Ramesh Grover & Others reported in 2025 LCL 188 (Delhi) at Para No.48 that, the question, as to whether the suit properties are ancestral or self-
acquired is a mixed question of law and fact, which can only be decided after trial. But, on that ground, the plaint of the plaintiff cannot be rejected under Order 7, Rule 11 of the CPC, 1908 at its initial stage. (Para No.50) So, in view of the propositions of law enunciated in the ratio of the aforesaid decision, the ground raised on behalf of the petitioner (defendant No.1) for rejection of the plaint of the plaintiff that, the suit properties are not the ancestral properties CRP No.25 of 2023 Page 6 of 12 of the plaintiff cannot be a ground for rejection of the plaint of the plaintiff under Order 7,Rule 11 fof the CPC, 1908.
11. So far as the 2nd ground raised on behalf of the petitioner for rejection of the plaint of the plaintiff (Opp. Party No.1) i.e. the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable on the ground of suppression of material facts is concerned;
On this aspect the propositions of law has already been clarified in the ratio of the following decision:
i. In a case between Captain Rajesh Kumar Son of Tara Kant Ojha Vs. Pramila Singh, wife of Anil Singh decided on 03.09.2024 in Civil Revision No.133 of 2016 (Patna) that, suppression of material facts can be ascertained only from the pleadings made in the written statement and the evidence to be adduced by the parties. (Para Nos.22 & 27) Therefore, in view of the principles of law enunciated in the ratio of the aforesaid decision, the plaint of the plaintiff (Opp.
Party No.1) vide C.S. No.40 of 2022 cannot be rejected only on the ground of suppression of material facts at the initial stage of the suit.
12. So far as the 3rd ground raised on behalf of the petitioner (defendant No.1) for rejection of the plaint of the plaintiff (Opp. CRP No.25 of 2023 Page 7 of 12 Party No.1) i.e. The suit of the plaintiff is barred by law of limitation is concerned;
On this aspect the propositions of law has already been clarified in the ratio of the following decisions:
i. In a case between Vidya Devi @ Vidya Vati (dead) by LRs. VS. Prem Prakash & Others reported in AIR 1995 Supreme Court 1789 that, in a suit for partition, there is always running cause of action and unless and until it is established that, the suit properties are not the joint and undivided properties of the parties, the suit for partition cannot be held as barred by limitation.
ii. In a case between Shakti Bhog Food Industries Ltd. Vs. The Central Bank of India & Another reported in 2021 (1) Civ.C.C. 1 (SC) that, Rejection of plaint-- Barred by Limitation--Plea of accrual of cause of action whether genuine and legitimate, is a mixed question of fact and law. Order rejecting plaint cannot be sustained. (Para Nos.13 & 22) iii. In a case between Smt. Omwati & Others Vs. Raghubar Singh Yadav & Others reported in 2021 (1) Civ.C.C. 22 (All.) that, Rejection of plaint--Barred by limitation-- Question of limitation is a mixed question of fact and law which can only be determined conclusively after parties lead their evidence. (Para No.17) Therefore, in view of the principles of law enunciated in the ratio of the aforesaid decisions, the suit of the plaintiff cannot reject holding that, the same is barred by limitation. CRP No.25 of 2023 Page 8 of 12
13. So far as the 4th ground raised on behalf of the petitioner (defendant No.1) for rejection of the plaint of the plaintiff (Opp. Party No.1) i.e. Non-inclusion of all the family properties into the suit schedule is concerned;
It is very fundamental in law that, in a suit for partition, the status of all the parties are as good as plaintiff.
The status of the parties in a suit for partition are in no way different and separate from each other.
When the suit vide C.S. No.40 of 2022 filed by the plaintiff (Opp. Party No.1) is a suit for partition, then, at this juncture, in view of the above propositions of law, if the plaintiff has left out some of the properties from the suit schedule, the defendant No.1 (petitioner in this revision) is not precluded under law to include such left out properties into the suit schedule for partition of the same along with other properties already included.
There is also no bar under law for the parties to include the left out properties later on.
For which, on the ground of non-inclusion of all the joint properties into the suit for partition, the plaint of the plaintiff can never be rejected under Order 7, Rule 11 of the CPC. CRP No.25 of 2023 Page 9 of 12
14. So far as the 5th ground raised on behalf of the petitioner (defendant No.1) for rejection of the plaint of the plaintiff (Opp. Party No.1) i.e. Failure of the learned Trial Court to consider the documents annexed with I.A. of the defendant No.1 (petitioner in this Revision) for rejection of the plaint of the plaintiff is concerned;
As per law, during the course of proving up of any document by one party during trial against other party, the other party should be given opportunity for the rebuttal of the same.
So in view of the above principles of law, the documents annexed in the I.A. No.16 of 2022 by the defendant No.1 (petitioner in this Revision) for rejection of the plaint of the plaintiff cannot be a ground for rejection of the same, as there was no scope with the plaintiff at the time of consideration of petition under Order 7, Rule 11 of the CPC to challenge the genuineness, authenticity and relevancy of the said documents in question relied by the defendant No.1 (petitioner in this Revision). For which, the same cannot be a ground for rejection of the plaint of the plaintiff.
CRP No.25 of 2023 Page 10 of 12
15. As per the discussions and observations made above, all the above grounds raised on behalf of the petitioner (defendant No.1) for setting aside the impugned order of rejection to the petition under Order 7, Rule 11 of the CPC, 1908 passed in I.A. No.16 of 2022 learned Civil, Judge, Senior Division, Banpur have become unsustainable under law for the reasons assigned above.
For which, the question of interfering with the same through this revision filed by the defendant No.1 (petitioner) does not arise.
So, the decisions relied by the petitioner (defendant No.1) indicated in Para No.8 of this Judgment have become inapplicable to this Revision at hand for the reasons assigned above.
16. When it is held that, the impugned order passed in I.A. No.16 of 2022 are not intereferable through this revision filed by the petitioner (defendant No.1), then, there is no justification under law for setting aside the same.
17. Therefore, there is no merit in the revision filed by the petitioner (defendant No.1). The same must fail. CRP No.25 of 2023 Page 11 of 12
18. In result, the revision filed by the petitioner (defendant No.1) is dismissed on contest, but without cost.
19. As such, this revision is disposed of finally.
(ANANDA CHANDRA BEHERA) JUDGE High Court of Orissa, Cuttack The 26 .09. 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: 27-Sep-2025 10:34:52 CRP No.25 of 2023 Page 12 of 12