Orissa High Court
Manisha Das vs Raghunandan Das on 1 August, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CMP No. 625 OF 2022
Manisha Das .... Petitioner
Mr. Banshidhar Baug, Advocate
-versus-
Raghunandan Das .... Opp. Party
Mr. D.K. Sahoo, Advocate
CORAM:
JUSTICE K.R. MOHAPATRA
ORDER
Order No. 01.08.2022
01. 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.
2. This CMP has been filed seeking for a direction to the
learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), 1st Court, Cuttack to
correct the name of the husband of Plaintiff-Petitioner in the
cause title of the judgment and decree passed in C.S. No.117 of
2009 and disposed of C.M.A. No.146 of 2019 accordingly.
3. Mr. Baug, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits
that the Petitioner is the daughter of the Opposite Party. She
had filed C.S. No.117 of 2009 for partition. The suit was
decreed on compromise vide order dated 22nd April, 2012
passed by the Lok Adalat. Compromise decree was drawn up
accordingly. Subsequently, the Plaintiff-Petitioner could detect
that the name of her husband has been wrongly typed as
'Swadhi' in place of 'Swadhin' in the judgment and decree
passed in the said suit. Hence, she filed an application under
Section 151 read with Section 152 C.P.C. in C.M.A. No.146 of
2019 for correction of the name of her husband in the cause
title of the judgment and decree. The Defendant-Opposite Party
// 2 //
appeared and gave his consent for such correction. Considering
the facts and circumstances of the case, learned Civil Judge
(Senior Division), 1st Court, Cuttack allowed the petition vide
order dated 19th February, 2021 and posted the matter to 24th
February, 2021 for orders in C.M.A. No.146 of 2019. Before
pronouncement of the order, the Presiding Officer was
transferred. The succeeding Presiding Officer vide his order
dated 15th March, 2022 posted the matter to 21st April, 2022 for
hearing and since then the matter is lingering.
4. It is submitted by Mr. Baug, learned counsel for the
Petitioner that learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), 1st Court,
Cuttack is insisting upon the Plaintiff-Petitioner to lead
evidence in the matter. As the Petitioner is staying at Hyderbad
and is not in a position to come to Odisha to lead evidence in
the matter in near future, the matter is likely to be delayed and
is unnecessarily lingering for a simple correction in the name of
her husband, which is not objected by the Defendant-Opposite
Party. Hence, he prays for a direction to learned Civil Judge,
(Senior Division), 1st Court, Cuttack for correction of the name
of her husband in the judgment and decree passed in C.S.
No.117 of 2009.
5. Mr. Sahoo, learned counsel by filing Vakalatnama in
Court today enters appearance on behalf of the Opposite Party.
He submits that he has no objection, if the prayer made by
learned counsel for the Petitioner is allowed.
6. In the facts and circumstances of the case and for the
ends of justice, this Court directs that learned Civil Judge
// 3 //
(Senior Division), 1st Court, Cuttack shall do well to dispose of
the petition i.e. C.M.A. No.146 of 2019 in accordance with law
as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of seven
days from the date of production of certified copy of this order
keeping in mind that the prayer made by the Petitioner is not
objected by the Opposite Party as well as the order dated 19th
February, 2021 passed in the said C.M.A. without insisting
upon leading evidence in the matter.
Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper
application.
(K.R. Mohapatra)
Judge
ms
