Analogous trials allow rebuttal evidence after opposing party's case without consolidating suits, ensuring distinct claims are addressed appropriately.

JUDGMENT :

B.P. ROUTRAY, J.

1. Heard Mr. B. Bhuyan for the Petitioner and Mr. S.P. Mishra for the Opposite Parties, both learned senior counsels.

2. Present CMP is directed against impugned order dated 13^th February, 2025 passed in CS No.9 of 2011 analogously tried with CS No.424 of 2022, of learned 1^st Additional Senior Civil Judge, Cuttack.

3. Present Petitioner is the Plaintiff in CS No.424 of 2022 and Defendant No.3 in CS No.9 of 2011, whereas present Opposite Party No.1 is Plaintiff in CS No.9 of 2011 and Defendant No.1 in CS No.424 of 2022. CS No.9 of 2011 is filed with a prayer for declaration of right, title and interest of the Plaintiff therein in respect of the suit property. The same suit property is the subject matter in dispute in CS No.424 of 2022 wherein the Plaintiff therein has prayed for eviction of Defendant No.1, confirmation of his possession and permanent injunction.

4. Both the suits having involved same property and dispute between the common parties, learned District Judge in TRP(C) No.6 of 2022 directed for analogous trial of both the suits and to deliver common judgment. Thereafter trial of both suits began and evidence was led before the 1^st Additional Senior Civil Judge, Cuttack. The Plaintiff in CS No.9 of 2011 examined himself as P.W.1 and his evidence was concluded on 31^st January, 2024 as per Annexure-6 and then the evidence of P.W.2 began and concluded on 7^th November, 2024. Similarly the evidence of P.W.3 was concluded on 29^th November, 2024. Thereafter P.W.4 was examined and discharged and the evidence from the side of Plaintiff in CS No.9 of 2011 was closed. Thereafter a petition was filed by the Plaintiff in CS No.9 of 2011 on 16^th January, 2025 praying to allow him to adduce evidence, if necessary in other suit, i.e. CS No.424 of 2022, after completion of evidence of Plaintiff in the said suit. It is relevant to reproduce para-5 and prayer portion of said petition which read as follows:-

“5. That, under the circumstances the Plaintiff Society who is the Principal Defendant No.1 in C.S No.424/2022 reserves its right to adduce evidence in C.S No.424/2022 only after the evidence of the present Defendant No.3 who is the Plaintiff in C.S No.424/2022 since right to begin vests on the present Defendant No.3 who is the Plaintiff in C.S No.424/2022 or else the present Plaintiff will be highly prejudiced.

PRAYER

It is therefore prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be graciously pleased to allow the present Plaintiff to adduce its evidence if necessary in C.S No.424/2022 after the completion of evidence of the present Defendant No.3 (Plaintiff in C.S No.424/2022).

And for this act of kindness the Plaintiff shall as in duty bound ever pray.”

5. Said prayer of present Opposite Party No.1 was allowed vide impugned order dated 13^th February, 2025, which is subject matter of challenge in present CMP. Some relevant portion of said order of learned trial court is reproduced bellow:-

“4. Perused the petition, objection, pleadings, evidence affidavit of three witnesses from the side of plaintiff in C.S. No.9/2011, order dated 14.03.2023 passed by the Hon'ble District Judge, Cuttack in TRP(Civil) No.6/2022 and other relevant documents. Firstly, on perusal of the order dated 14.03.2023 passed by the Hon'ble District Judge, Cuttack in TRP(Civil) No.6/2022, it is apparent that the Hon'ble Court has directed for analogous trial of both the suits in this Court and to deliver a common judgment. Secondly, on perusal of the evidence affidavits of P.W.1 to P.W.3 in C.S. No.9/2011, it is evident that in the cause title of all the evidence affidavits both the case numbers are mentioned but on detailed scrutiny of the evid