The court emphasized that admissions in legal proceedings are definitive unless opposing evidence is presented, highlighting the importance of allowing parties to contest such admissions for justice to prevail.

JUDGMENT :

Savitri Ratho, J.

The Appellant has challenged the order dated 26.12.2016 passed in Civil Proceeding No. 24 of 2015 (I) by the learned Judge, Family Court, Balasore. By the said order, the learned Judge has dismissed the suit filed by the Appellant as not maintainable holding that it was filed with frivolous motive and was barred by the law of estoppel.

In order to decide this appeal, we have to examine whether the learned trial Court was justified in dismissing the suit basing on the alleged admission of the Appellant in an earlier proceeding i.e. C.P. No.1056 of 2010 filed by him, by relying on Photostat copies of documents filed by the Respondents .

BACKGROUND FACTS

2. C.P. No. 24 of 2015 had been filed by the Appellant as Petitioner, for declaration and permanent injunction against the Respondents praying for the following reliefs :

“a.) Let, the Hon'ble Court pass a decree declaring that the petitioner is not the father of the respondent No.2, born to the respondent No.1and the respondent no.2 is not the legal heir of the petitioner.

b.) Let the decree be passed against respondent No.1 including her agents, servants, legal representatives, associates and be permanently injuncted not to disturb with the petitioner’s right and status and not to cause any damage to the status , house and property situated at his native village Nuaparhi of the petitioner in any manner.

c) The costs of the suit or such other relief/reliefs which the petitioner is entitled to get under law, equity and justice be decreed/awarded to the petitioner.”

3. In his plaint / petition the Appellant had made various allegations against the Respondent No.2. Paragraph 11 and 13 of the plaint / petition are relevant and extracted below:

“11. That the respondent No.1 did not allow the petitioner for co-habitation at any point of time and assaulted him. As a matter of fact, the spouses had / have never co- habited and the respondent No.1 had sexual intercourse with a person other than the petitioner and the respondent No.2 was born on 13.6.2004 at the time when the child could have not been conceived in the womb of her mother, the respondent No.1 through the petitioner.. The petitioner was /is not the father of the respondent No. 2 born to respondent No.1. The petitioner is seriously disputing the paternity of the respondent No.2. During that period, the petitioner was living at his service place at Govt. College. Phulbani District and Respondent No.1 was living at village at different districts .The petitioner had no existing opportunity to have any sexual relationship with respondent No.1 at the time when respondent No. 2 could have been begotten.”

12 xxx

“13. That the respondent No.1 instituted C.T. No. 591/2014 and D.V. Misc Case No.: 93/2014 and maintenance before the S.D.J.M., Balasore and Cr.P. No. 76/2012 before Judge, Family Court, Balasore. Being noticed from the Court of the S.D.J.M., Balasore on dt. 26.3.12 and 23.4.2014 and every dates thereafter the petitioner came to know about the false claim made by the respondents which has disturbed the petitioner’s status as father of the respondent No.2 and a cloud having been cast upon it for the first time for which petitioner constrained to file the suit for necessary declaration & permanent injunction against the respondents.”

Copy of the plaint in C.P. No. 24 of 2015 is annexed as Annexure 1 to the MATA.

4. Having received the summons from the Court, the Respondents appeared in the case though their counsel on 27.02.2015. On 09.11.2105, the Respondents filed a detailed written statement along