SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(Ori) 5438

ORISSA HIGH COURT
RAMESH CHANDRA NATH SHARMA – Appellant
Versus
SUDHANSHU SEKHAR NATH SHARMA – Respondent
CRP 33 / 2023



##PAGE1##

ORISSA HIGH COURT : CUTTACK

C.R.P. No.33 of 2023

An application under Section 115 of the Code of Civil

Procedure, 1908

***

Ramesh Chandra Nath Sharma … Petitioner

-VERSUS-

Sudhanshu Sekhar Nath Sharma & Others …

Opposite Parties

Counsel appeared for the parties:

For the Petitioner : Mr. S.C.Nath Sharma, Advocate

Mr.S.J.Biswal, Advocate

For the Opposite Parties : Mr. P.K.Nanda, Advocate

P R E S E N T:

HONOURABLE

MR. JUSTICE ANANDA CHANDRA BEHERA

Date of Hearing: 02.12.2025 :: Date of Judgment : 23.12.2025

Page 1 of 9

##PAGE2##

JUDGMENT

ANANDA CHANDRA BEHERA, J.

1. This revision under Section 115 of the C.P.C,1908 has been

filed by Petitioner (Defendant No.1 in the suit vide C.S. No.1983

of 2017 pending in the Court of learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division),

L.R., Bhubaneswar) against the Opposite Party No.1 (Plaintiff in

the suit vide C.S. No.1983 of 2017 arraying the Defendant Nos.2

and 3 of the said suit as the proforma Opposite Party Nos.2 and 3

challenging an order of rejection to his petition dated 11.08.2023

(Annexure-5) under Order 7 Rule 11 (b) and (d) of the C.P.C.,1908

passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), L.R.,

Bhubaneswar.

2. The factual backgrounds of this revision, which prompted

the Petitioner (Defendant No.1 in the suit vide C.S. No.1983 of

2017) for filing of the same is that, the suit vide C.S. No.1983 of

2017 was filed by the O.P. No.1 in this revision being the Plaintiff

praying for partition of the suit properties.

3. In the said suit vide C.S. No.1983 of 2017, the Defendant

No.1 (Petitioner in this revision) filed a petition on dated

04.03.2021 (Annexure-2) under Order 7 Rule 11 (b) and (d) of the

Page 2 of 9

##PAGE3##

C.P.C., 1908 Praying for rejection of the plaint of the Plaintiff

under the following two grounds i.e.:-

(I) the suit for partition filed by the Plaintiff is not

maintainable, as the suit properties are the self-acquired

properties of the Defendant No.1 (father of the Plaintiff)

in respect of which, the suit vide C.S. No.1983 of 2017 is

not maintainable.

(II) The suit of the Plaintiff has been undervalued.

To which, the Plaintiff (O.P. No.1 in this revision) objected as

per Annexure-3 stating that, the grounds raised in the Petition of

the Defendant No.1 (Petitioner in this revision) for rejection of the

plaint are not entertainable, because, on the basis of his

pleadings, the same are adjudiciable and the same are required

to be decided in the judgment of the suit. For which, the petition

under Order 7 Rule 11 (b) and (d) of the C.P.C., 1908 filed by the

Defendant No.1 (Petitioner in this revision) is liable to be rejected.

4. After hearing from both the sides, the learned Trial Court

rejected to the petition dated 04.03.2021 (Annexure-2) under

Order 7 Rule 11 (b) and (d) of the C.P.C., 1908 of the Defendant

No.1 as per the impugned Order dated 11.08.2023 (Annexure-5)

assigning the reasons that,

Page 3 of 9

##PAGE4##

“the plaint of the Plaintiff (O.P. No.1 in this revision) vide C.S.

No.1983 of 2017 cannot be rejected at its threshold in its

preliminary stage”.

5. I have already heard from the learned counsel for the

Petitioner and the learned counsel for the Opposite Party No.1.

6. Basing upon the Petition under Order 7 Rule 11 (b) and (d)

of the C.P.C, 1908 of the Defendant No.1 (Petitioner in this

revision) objection against the same filed by the Plaintiff (O.P.

No.1 in this revision), findings and observations made above in

the impugned order 11.08.2023 (Annexure-5) by the learned Trial

Court and the rival submissions of the learned counsels of both

the sides, the crux of this revision is that,

(i) whether, the suit of the Plaintiff (O.P. No.1 vide C.S.

No.1983 of 2017) for partition is liable to be rejected at

its threshold as per Order 7 Rule 11 (b) and (d) of the

C.P.C, 1908 on the ground that, the said suit for

partition is not maintainable.

(ii) whether the plaint in the suit vide C.S. No.1983 of

2017 can be rejected on the ground of undervaluation

raised by the Defendant No.1 (Petitioner in this revision).

7. So far as, the first ground f

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top