SANTOSH KUMAR AGARWAL BIBHUTI BHUSAN MISHRA 2, D.K.SAHU,A.MISHRA,X vs NANDA KISHROE PRADHAN — CMP/384/2026

Case under Constitution of India, 1950 Section 226,227. Disposed: Contested--Disposed Off on 24th March 2026.

Case disposed

CNR: ODHC010138652026

e-Filing Number

20-02-2026

Filing Number

CMP/7981/2026

Filing Date

20-Feb-2026

Registration No

CMP/384/2026

Registration Date

26-Feb-2026

Judge

Mr. Justice Aditya Kumar Mohapatra

Coram

Mr. Justice Aditya Kumar Mohapatra

Bench Type

Single Bench

Category

ORDINARY CIVIL MATTER ( 28 )

Sub-Category

SUIT FOR DECLARATION.(TITLE/DAMAGES/RECOVERY ETC.) ( 4 )

Judicial Branch

Civil Section

Decision Date

24-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--Disposed Off

Last updated 09-Apr-2026

Acts & Sections

Constitution of India, 1950 Section 226,227

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.SANTOSH KUMAR AGARWAL BIBHUTI BHUSAN MISHRA 2, D.K.SAHU,A.MISHRA,X

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.NANDA KISHROE PRADHAN

  2. 2.JAGANNATH BAL

  3. 3.MANMATHNATH BAL

  4. 4.BIJAY KUMAR BAL

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 24-Mar-2026

    Mr. Justice Aditya Kumar MohapatraView PDF

    The High Court of Orissa upheld the trial court's rejection of the defendant's application for appointment of a Civil Court Commissioner under Order 26 Rule 9 CPC, holding that such appointment falls within the trial court's sole discretion and no illegality occurred. However, the court granted the petitioner liberty to file a fresh application after closure of evidence, which the trial court must reconsider based on complete evidence and factual background. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 24-Mar-2026

    Fresh Admission 1

    Mr. Justice Aditya Kumar Mohapatra

  4. 20-Feb-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. CMP/384/2026

casestatus.in Summary

The High Court of Orissa upheld the trial court's rejection of the defendant's application for appointment of a Civil Court Commissioner under Order 26 Rule 9 CPC, holding that such appointment falls within the trial court's sole discretion and no illegality occurred. However, the court granted the petitioner liberty to file a fresh application after closure of evidence, which the trial court must reconsider based on complete evidence and factual background. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case