IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

W.P.(C) No. 7607 of 2025

Bishnu Charan Majhee …. Petitioner

Mr. Nirod Kumar Sahu, Advocate

-versus-

State of Odisha and others …. Opposite Parties

Mr. Saswat Das, Addl. Govt. Advocate for State

Mr. P.K. Mohanty, Senior Advocate for O.P.2

CORAM:

HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

AND

HON’BLE MR JUSTICE MURAHARI SRI RAMAN

ORDER

Order No. 13.01.2026

05. I.A. No.14614 of 2025 in W.P.(C) No.7607 of 2025

1. The route of an amendment recognized under Order 6, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as ‘CPC’) is taken in the instant writ petition seeking to bring certain facts which, according to the petitioner, originated during the pendency of the instant writ petition and not taken into account by

incorporating expressly and specifically in the pleadings.

2. A prelude to the instant litigation is required to be recapitulated before we embark our journey on the nuances of law

relating to amendment of the pleadings.

2.1. A suit was filed by the predecessor of the Cuttack Municipal Corporation (CMC) not only for eviction of the defendant/judgment-debtor from the property described in the Schedule appended to the plaint but also for demolition of the structure constructed thereupon. The said suit was dismissed by the trial Court repelling the contention of the CMC, which was carried to the First Appellate Court. The CMC contended before the First Appellate Court that the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court in not holding that a portion of the scheduled property is recorded as a "Nala", i.e., a public road is perverse and not in consonance therewith. The First Appellate Court accepted the contention of the CMC and set aside the judgment and decree of the trial Court and directed not only the delivery of possession of the scheduled property but also demolition of the structure standing thereupon.

2.2. The judgment and decree of the First Appellate Court was assailed in the second appeal before this Court but the same was dismissed as this Court does not find any substantial question of law involved therein.

2.3. A Special Leave Petition, challenging the dismissal of the second appeal, was also dismissed in limine.

2.4. As is commonly understood in the legal parlance and observed in a catena of decisions by the apex Court that the real troubles start after getting the decree. The execution case initiated by the CMC was being dragged and/or protracted for one reason or the other. Even an application under Section 47 of the CPC assailing the executability of the said decree was filed by the judgment-debtor, which consumed a considerable period of time, but ultimately received the fate of dismissal.

2.5. The said order was further challenged by way of revisional application before this Court but the judgment-debtor could not succeed therefrom. After having resorted to such avenues available under the processual law, an application was taken out for demarcation of the land, obviously, on the stand of the CMC that a portion or part of the scheduled property is recorded as “Nala”. The executing Court declined to accede to such reliefs and the order of dismissal stood affirmed on the dismissal of the original application.

3. Amidst the pendency of the execution proceeding, the instant writ petition is taken out by the petitioner with the following reliefs:

“It is therefore humbly prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue Rule NISI in the nature of appropriate writs calling upon the Opp.party No.2, Cuttack Municipal Corporation as to why;

i) the Cuttack Municipal Corporation (CMC) O.P. No.2 shall not be directed to demolish the unauthorized construction made over the property of the Govt. situated at Khata No. 118, under Anenxure-9 by using of his own encroachment squad and report the same to the executing court in Ex-case No. 80/2019. And ii) the executing court i.e. 1st Addl. Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Cuttack shall not be directed to proceed with the execution of case suo motu with ap