Harihar Baral vs State Of Odisha And Others
2023 Latest Caselaw 4067 Ori

                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
                               W.P.(C) No.12682 of 2023
                                (Through Hybrid mode)


            Harihar Baral                            ....                 Petitioner


                                                          Mr. Bikas Jena, Advocate

                                          -versus-


            State of Odisha and others               ....           Opposite Parties

                                                           Mr. A. K. Sharma, AGA

                                                           Mr. P. Naidu, Advocate


            CORAM:
            JUSTICE ARINDAM SINHA
            JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MISHRA

                                          ORDER

21.04.2023

W.P.(C) No.12682 of 2023 and I.A. no.5834 of 2023 Order No.

01. 1. Mr. Jena, learned advocate appears on behalf of petitioner and

submits, his client is faced with eviction under judgment dated 12th

April, 2018 passed by the Commissioner. His client had no notice of

the proceeding. Hence, two fold prayers have been made in the writ

// 2 //

petition. Firstly, to recall our order dated 1st November, 2022 and

secondly, for interference with said judgment, having been passed ex

parte against his client. He submits further, after service of summons,

there was amendment of plaint, not served upon his client. Application

for recall of the judgment has already been filed. He draws attention to

eviction notice dated 18th April, 2023 for his eviction on 24th April,

2023. He seeks interference.

2. Mr. Sharma, learned advocate, Additional Government

Advocate appears on behalf of State and Ms. Naidu, learned advocate,

for the Commissioner.

3. It appears from our order dated 1st November, 2022 that we had

enquired of parties before us on whether there was appeal preferred

against said judgment dated 12th April, 2018. Ms. Naidu submits,

challenge to said judgment could only have been by suit. On answer

being in the negative, we had directed initiation of execution or if

already initiated, to proceed with it. Our direction was in the nature of

mandamus upon the statutory authority being the Commissioner. This

was inspite of State having had pointed out that petitioner, as judgment

debtor, was not party to the writ petition.

// 3 //

4. We clarify that our order was for action to be taken in

accordance with law. Said order could not and should not prevent

petitioner to obtain remedy, if available to him in law.

5. We give petitioner three weeks' time to find his remedy and

interim protection against the eviction directed by the said judgment

dated 12th April, 2018. We do so by staying the eviction notice till

three weeks from date. Our this limited interference is warranted

because the notice says it was issued pursuant to our order.

6. The writ petition is disposed of.

7. Parties are to act on official website copy of this order.

( Arindam Sinha ) Judge

( S. K. Mishra ) Judge Prasant