IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CMP No.318 of 2025 Jogi Jena ..... Petitioner Represented by Adv. - Banshidhar Satapathy -versus-

Tikina @ Parbati Jena and ..... Opposite Parties others Represented by Adv. -

CORAM:

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA

ORDER

11.03.2026 Order No.

04. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid mode.

2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioners. Perused the CMP application as well as the prayer made therein.

3. By filing the present CMP application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner has approached this Court being aggrieved by order dated 28.09.2024 passed in C.S. No.90 of 2021 by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Div.), Puri, thereby rejecting the application of the Petitioner filed under Section 10 read with Section 151 of CPC to stay the further proceeding in the pending C.S. No.90 of 2021 on the ground that an appeal bearing RFA No.11 of 2019 involving the self-same subject matter is pending before the District Judge, Puri.

4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner at the outset contended that the defendant in the present suit filed C.S. No.135 of 2015 against the plaintiff of the suit for declaration of right, title, interest and confirmation of possession over the subject matter of the present suit. The said C.S. No.135 of 2015 was disposed of on contest on 27.12.2018, and accordingly, the suit was dismissed. As against the dismissal of the suit, the plaintiff in C.S. No.135 of 2015 has approached the learned First Appellate Court, i.e. the Court of learned District Judge, Puri by filing an appeal bearing RFA No.11 of 2019. During the pendency of the aforesaid appeal before the learned Court of District Judge the present suit bearing C.S. No.90 of 2021 was filed by the Opposite Parties-plaintiffs arraying the Petitioner as defendant. The defendant on his appearance filed an application under Section 10 read with Section 151 of CPC with a prayer for stay of further proceeding in the subsequent suit on the ground that an appeal bearing RFA No.11 of 2019 is still pending before the learned District Judge, Puri for disposal.

5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner at the outset contended that the subject matters in both the suits are same and the parties are also same. Therefore, the subsequent suit falls within the ambit of Section 10 of CPC. Accordingly, the defendants after their appearance moved an application at the first flush with a prayer for stay of further proceeding in the subsequent suit, awaiting the outcome of the first suit. Such application having been rejected by the learned trial Court vide order dated 28.09.2024 at Annexure-3, the defendant-Petitioner has approached this Court challenging such order. In course of his argument, learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that although the subject matters of the dispute in both the suits are same and that the parties are same, the learned trial Court should have stayed the further proceeding in the subsequent suit. Further, referring to the impugned order dated 28.09.2024, the learned counsel for the Petitioner further submitted that the learned trial Court has committed an illegality in rejecting the prayer of the Petitioner under Section 10 of CPC for stay of further proceeding in the present suit.

6. On a careful examination of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the Petitioner, further on a close scrutiny of the documents annexed to the CMP application as well as the impugned order dated 28.09.2024, this Court observed that the learned trial Court while considering the application of the Petitioner under Section 10 read with Section 151 of CPC has disposed of the application by passing a speaking and reasoned order. The learned trial Court after analyzing the fact as well as the law has come to a conclusion that the provision contained in Section 10 of CPC would not be applicable to the facts of the Petitioner’s case. While analyzing the factual background in the light of Section 10 of C