Location: OHC, Cuttack Date: 13-Nov-2025 15:59:24 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CMP No.107 of 2025 (In the matter of an application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India)

Kanak Mahapatra and Others …. Petitioners -versus-

Artabandhu Mahapatra and Others … Opposite Parties Advocate(s) appeared in this case:-

For Petitioner : Mr. H.N. Mohapatra, Advocate For Opp. Parties : Mr. A.P. Bose, counsel for O.P.2&3 Mr. Akhand, counsel for O.P. No.1 CORAM: JUSTICE B.P. ROUTRAY

JUDGMENT

10^th November, 2025 B.P. Routray, J.

1. Heard Mr. H.N. Mohapatra, learned counsel for the Petitioners, Mr. A.P. Bose, learned counsel for Opposite Parties 2 & 3 and Mr.

Akhand, learned counsel for Opposite Party No.1.

2. Present CMP is directed against order dated 5^th December, 2024 of learned Senior Civil Judge, Puri passed in C.S. No.126 of 2020, wherein the prayer of defendants 1 to 3 to withdraw their written Location: OHC, Cuttack Date: 13-Nov-2025 15:59:24 statement filed earlier with permission to file a fresh written statement has been refused.

3. Present petitioners are defendants 1 to 3 in the suit and present opposite party No.1 is the plaintiff. Present opposite parties 2 and 3 are defendants 4 and 5.

4. The plaintiff filed the suit praying for a decree for specific performance of contract directing the defendants 1 to 5 to execute the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff in respect of the suit property along with consequential reliefs.

5. The defendants upon their appearance contested the suit and filed a joint written statement on behalf of all the defendants, i.e. defendants 1 to 5. The joint written statement was filed on 23^rd November, 2020. The issues were accordingly framed and the suit proceeded. The witnesses from the side of the plaintiff as well as from the side of defendants 4 and 5 were also examined. After that, at the stage of adducing evidence from the side of defendants 1 to 3, they filed a petition dated 20^th September, 2024 praying to permit them to withdraw their written statement filed jointly earlier along with defendants 4 and 5 and grant permission to file a separate Location: OHC, Cuttack Date: 13-Nov-2025 15:59:24 written statement on their behalf. It needs to be mentioned that as per the plaint averments certain amount towards consideration money for sale of the suit land was paid by the plaintiff and received by defendants 1 to 3, whereas as per the joint written statement filed on behalf of the defendants the suit land was sold by execution of a sale deed in favour of defendants 4 and 5 by defendants 1 to 3. Now at the stage of adducing evidence from the side of defendants 1 to 3, they want to withdraw their stand taken in the joint written statement filed earlier with permission to file fresh written statement on the ground that their signatures were taken on blank papers to file the written statement on their behalf and they without knowing the same have signed the written statement. It is further stated that defendants 1 to 3 had never intended to execute the registered sale deed in favour of defendants 4 and 5 but under compelling circumstances executed the same without receiving the consideration money thereof.

6. First of all there is no express provision under the Civil Procedure Code to withdraw the written statement earlier filed by a defendant and to file a fresh written statement in lieu of the same. It is true that there cannot be two written statements by the same party.

Location: OHC, Cuttack Date: 13-Nov-2025 15:59:24 Considering the inherent power of the Court under Section 151 of C.P.C., it is settled that such power should be exercised cautiously in exceptional circumstances to meet the ends of justice. It is observed in the case of K.K. Velusamy v. N. Palanisamy, (2011) 11 SCC 275, as follows:-

“12. xx .. xx .. xx .. The scope of Section 151 has been explained by this Court in several decisions [see Padam Sen v. State of U.P. [AIR 1961 SC 218 : (1961) 1 Cri LJ 322] , Manohar Lal Chopra v. Seth