ORISSA HIGH COURT : CUTTACK

I.A. No.1187 of 2025 arising out of R.S.A. No.306 of 2004

An application under Order 23, Rule 3 of the CPC, 1908.

***

Bijaya Kumar Pani

… Appellant.

-VERSUS-

Basanti Panda (dead) represented through L.Rs. & Others

… Respondents

Counsel appeared for the parties:

For the Appellant : Mr. S.K. Patnaik, Advocate

For the Respondents : D.P. Mohanty, Advocate.

For the Respondent Nos.1(a) to 1(e).

P R E S E N T: HONOURABLE

MR. JUSTICE ANANDA CHANDRA BEHERA

Date of Hearing : 25.11.2025 :: Date of Judgment : 23.12.2025

JUDGMENT

ANANDA CHANDRA BEHERA, J.

1.

A joint compromise petition in the form of this I.A. has been filed jointly by the appellant and the LRs of the respondent No.1 i.e. respondent No.1(a) to 1(e) under Order 23, Rule 3 of the CPC, 1908 praying for disposing of the 2nd Appeal vide R.S.A. No.306 of 2004 on the basis of the same, because, as per previous order dated 14.11.2025 passed in I.A. No.1186 of 2025, the 2^nd Appeal vide R.S.A. No.306 of 2004 was dismissed against the respondent Nos.2 to 10 under Order 23, Rule 1 of the CPC, 1908 due to the abandonment of the claim of the appellant against them. For which, since 14.11.2025, the 2nd Appeal vide R.S.A. No.306 of 2004 was continuing between the appellant and the LRs of the respondent No.1 i.e. respondent Nos.1(a) to 1(e).

2. The appellant in the 2^nd Appeal vide R.S.A. No.306 of 2004 was the defendant No.6 before the learned Trial Court in the suit vide T.S. No.31/1996 and appellant before the learned First Appellate Court in the First Appeal vide T.A.

No.9/13 of 1998/2003.

The respondent No.1 in the 2nd Appeal vide R.S.A.

No.306 of 2004 was the sole plaintiff before the learned Trial Court and he was the respondent No.1 before the learned First Appellate Court in the First Appeal vide T.A. No.9/13 of

1998/2003.

After the death of the respondent No.1 (plaintiff) in T.A.

No.9/13 of 1998/2003, his LRs have been substituted as respondent Nos.1(a) to 1(e).

3. The suit vide T.S. No.31 of 1996 was a suit for recovery of possession and for permanent injunction against the defendant Nos.1 to 6 stating in the plaint that, the defendant Nos.1 to 6 have no right, title and interest over the suit properties and they are the illegal possessor thereof. For which, the decree for recovery of possession and permanent injunction was passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant Nos.1 to 6 as per the Judgment & Decree passed by the learned Trial Court in the suit vide T.S. No.31 of 1996 and the said Judgment & Decree was confirmed by the learned First Appellate Court in the First Appeal vide T.A.

No.9/13 of 1998/2003.

Then, 2nd Appeal vide R.S.A. No.306 of 2004 was filed by the defendant No.6 against the plaintiff and other defendants.

4. After abandonment of the 2^nd Appeal by the appellant (defendant No.6) against his co-defendants i.e. defendant Nos.2 to 10, the 2nd Appeal vide R.S.A. No.306 of 2004 was between him (appellant-defendant No.6) and the LRs of the plaintiff i.e. respondent Nos.1(a) to 1(e).

The defendant No.6 along with LRs of the plaintiff i.e.

respondent Nos.1(a) to 1(e) filed joint compromise petition in the form of this I.A vide I.A. No.1187 of 2025 under Order 23, Rule 3 of the CPC, 1908 praying for the disposal of the 2^nd Appeal vide R.S.A. No.306 of 2004 on the basis of the terms and conditions indicated in the joint compromise petition vide I.A. No.1187 of 2025 treating the same as a part of the decree in the 2nd Appeal vide R.S.A. No.306 of 2004.

Each parties in this I.A. has filed their affidavits independently and separately stating that, the contents of this I.A. under Order 23, Rule 3 of the CPC, 1908 are correct and the learned counsels of both the sides i.e. appellant (defendant No.6) and respondent Nos.1(a) to 1(e) (LRs of the plaintiff) submitted that, the contents of the I.A. are all correct, to which, I perused and it was found the same as lawful.

For which, there is no impediment under law to disallow this I.A. No.1187 of 2025 under Order 23, R