Suits involving identical parties, the same property, and a common core issue, such as the validity of a Will, should be heard analogously to ensure judicial economy and avoid redundant witness testimonies.

ORD ER

Order No. 01

1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual /Physical Mode).

2. Heard Mr. Banshidhar Baug, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioner. Perused the CMP application as well as the prayer made therein.

3. The Plaintiff in Civil Suit No.19 of 2020 pending in the court of learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bhawanipatna, has approached this Court by filing the present CMP application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India thereby challenging the order dated 02.12.2025 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bhawanipatna in C.S. No.79 of 2020 wherein the Petitioner is the Defendant.

4. By virtue of the impugned order dated 02.12.2025, the learned trial court rejected the petition for analogous hearing of both the suits filed by the Defendant in C.S. No.79 of 2020, who also happens to be the Plaintiff in C.S. No.19 of 2020,.

5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner, at the outset, contended that initially the Petitioner as Plaintiff filed C.S. No.19 of 2020 in the court of learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bhawanipatna with a prayer for declaration of right, title, interest and possession over the suit scheduled ‘B’ land and joint right, title, interest and possession over scheduled ‘C’ land with the Defendant. Learned counsel for the Petitioner, at this juncture, contended that the Defendant in C.S. No.19 of 2020 filed another suit i.e. C.S. No.79 of 2020 before the very same court i.e. Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bhawanipatna with a prayer for declaration of right, title and interest and ownership of the Plaintiff over suit scheduled ‘A’ and ‘B’ landed properties to the exclusion of the Defendant, and to declare Willnama vide document No.18/2001 dated 07.06.2001 in respect of the suit scheduled landed property as illegal, fraudulent, fake, and marred by undue influence and misrepresentation, and not binding on the Plaintiff.

6. Learned counsel for the Petitioner, at the outset, contended that both the Plaintiff and the Defendant belong to the same family. He further contended that initially one Arakhita Pati executed a Willnama in favour of the present Petitioner and the Defendant jointly bequeathing the ancestral land. The dispute arose after the death of the original owner, namely, Late Arakhita Pati. The Plaintiff, on the basis of the Willnama dated 07.06.2001, as has been pleaded in Para-2 of the plaint in C.S No.19 of 2020, approached the learned trial court for declaration of his right, title and interest to the extent of his share that has been bequeathed in his favour by virtue of the aforesaid Will. The Plaintiff in C.S. No.79 of 2020 is the Defendant in C.S. No.19 of 2020.

7. Mr. Baug, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioner further contended that the Opposite Party in the present CMP, who is the Plaintiff in C.S. No.79 of 2020, filed the said suit before the very said court of the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bhawanipatna challenging the Will, which is also the subject matter of dispute in the first suit on the ground that the same has been obtained fraudulently. Accordingly, in the subsequent suit, which was filed by the present Opposite Party as Plaintiff, the Petitioner was made Defendant. The present Opposite Party in the suit bearing C.S. No.79 of 2020 has also prayed for declaration of right, title, interest and ownership over the Plaintiff over suit scheduled ‘A’ and ‘B’ landed properties to the exclusion of the Defendant therein (Petitioner in the present CMP application) and for a declaration that the Willnama dated 07.06.2001 has been obtained illegally, fraudulently and by misrepresentation and that the Plaintiff in that suit is not bound by the said Willnama along with an additional prayer for recovery of possession of the dwelling house.

8. By referring to the plaints filed in both the cases i.e. in C.S. No.19 of 2020 as well as C.S. No.79 of 2020, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioner tried to de