Shyamsundar Sharma vs Mst. Mayadevi Sharma & Others
2021 Latest Caselaw 12925 Ori

              IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

                             RSA NO.464 OF 2014

            Shyamsundar Sharma                    ....            Appellant
                                     M/s. N.C. Pati, M.R. Dash, B. Das &
                                         B. Pati, Advocates

                                   -versus-
            Mst. Mayadevi Sharma & Others         ....         Respondents

                                         M/s. Nilaya Ku. Rout & N.M.
                                            Rout, Advocates.
                     CORAM:
                     MR. JUSTICE D.DASH
                                      ORDER

16.12.2021 Order No.

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

2. This Appeal has been filed under Section-100 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short, 'the Code') in assailing the judgment and decree passed by the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Jharsuguda in RFA No. 15 of 2009 whereby the judgment and decree passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Divison), Jharsuguda in C.S. No. 27 of 2008 have been confirmed.

3. The suit filed by the Respondent Nos. 1 to 5-Plaintiff Nos. 1 to 5 has been decreed directing the Appellant- Defendant No.1 and other Defendant Nos. 2 to 9 to give delivery of vacant possession of the suit house and pay a sum of Rs.7,200/- to the Respondent Nos. 1 to 5-Plaintiffs towards arrear rent.

// 2 //

4. Mr. B.Das, learned counsel for the Appellant when stands to argue in the matter of admission of this Appeal; Mr. N.K. Rout, learned counsel who has entered appearance on behalf of the Respondent No.4 (Plaintiff No.4) as caveator submits that in the meantime, the decree under challenge in the Second Appeal has been fruitfully executed and fully satisfied. He submits that the Appellant-Defendant No.1 has been evicted from the suit house and the vacant possession of the same has been delivered to the Respondent Nos. 1 to 5- Plaintiffs.

5. Mr. B. Das, learned counsel for the Appellant submits to have received no such instruction.

6. The decree for eviction of the Appellant-Defendant No.1 and other Respondents-Defendant Nos. 2 to 9 and recovery of arrear of rent is based on a finding as to existence of landlord and tenant relationship between the Respondent Nos. 1 to 5-Plaintiffs and the Defendants holding that the same has been duly terminated.

7. In the above state of affair, keeping in view the submission of the learned counsel for the Respondent No.4- Plaintiff No.4; this Court finds that further continuance of this Appeal on Board would practically serve no useful purpose in so far as the parties are concerned except serving academic interest.

8. In that view of the matter, the Appeal stands disposed of granting liberty to the Appellant-Defendant No.1 to seek recall of this order in the event the impugned decree in

// 3 //

question has not been fruitfully executed as submitted by the learned counsel for the Respondent No.4-Plaintiff No.4.

No order as to cost.

Issue urgent certified copy as per rules.

(D. Dash), Judge.

Aks