Smt.Sobha Deb vs Nimai Charan Samal & Ors
2023 Latest Caselaw 1678 Ori

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

                           WP(C) NO.7972 OF 2012

        Smt.Sobha Deb                          ....             Petitioner

                                                    Mr.M.Mohanty, Adv.

                                    -versus-

        Nimai Charan Samal & ors.              ....      Opposite Parties
                                                     Mr.R.N.Behera, Adv.
                                                     Mr.S.Ghosh, AGA
                                                     Mr.A.K.Tripathy, Adv.

                 CORAM:
                 JUSTICE BISWANATH RATH

                                  ORDER

Order                             22.2.2023
No.
  6.    1.      Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner and learned

        Additional Government Advocate.

2. This Court records, in spite of appearance of a set of Counsel

for the Revision Petitioner, nobody is appearing to contest the

proceeding.

3. The Writ Petition involves a challenge to the order dated

27.2.2012 passed in Revision Petition No.39/2006 by the Additional

Commissioner, Settlement and Consolidation, Balasore.

4. Factual background involving the Civil Suit involving the

selfsame property, vide T.S. No.427/94 ended in judgment and

decree in favour of the Petitioner, vide Annexure-3 series. The

judgment was passed on 9.1.2003. There is no dispute at the Bar that

// 2 //

this judgment is appealed finally and concluded in RSA No.18/2010,

vide judgment dated 15.4.2019, in confirmation of the judgment and

decree in the Suit. In the meantime, it appears, Application under

Section 15(b) of the OSS Act was initiated at the instance of

Defendant Nos.11 to 14 in the Civil Suit, O.Ps.1 to 4 herein. The

Revision being disposed of deciding against the present Petitioner

resulted in filing the present Writ Petition.

5. Taking this Court to the Schedule of property involving in

the Revision, it alleged that the Revision involved has been allowed,

vide Annexure-5 in the wrong reading of the judgment and decree in

the Civil Proceeding finalized through RSA No.18/2010. Further

taking this Court to the Schedule of property in the Suit also

involved in the Revision Petition, this Court again finds, there is no

dispute in the commonness in the property. Mr.Mohanty, learned

counsel for the Petitioner taking this Court to the observations of the

Revisional Authority, particularly from the last two paragraphs

contended that there has been wrong reading and interpretation of

the Civil Court judgment and decree therein.

6. Involving the submission of the learned counsel for the

Parties, this Court finds, there is no disagreement in the submission

of the learned counsel for the Petitioner. Further on perusal of the

Schedule of property involved in both the cases, this Court finds,

// 3 //

there is commonness in the Schedule of property in the net result

requiring the Revisional Authority to be bound by the Civil Court

judgment and decree. In the process, this Court finds, there has been

wrong interpretation made to the judgment and decree in T.S.

No.427/94 confirmed in the judgment in RSA No.18/2010.

7. This Court as a result interferes with the impugned order at

Annexure-5 passed in Revision Petition No.39/2006 and set aside

the same. This Court, however, directs the Revisional Authority,

O.P.5 to re-adjudicate the dispute involving Revision Petition

No.39/2006, while also keeping in view the bindingness of the

judgment and decree in the Civil Court Proceeding. Parties are to

appear before O.P.5 on 2nd March, 2023 along with copy of this

order. Since some of the contesting Parties are not appearing, if it is

necessary, O.P.5 shall do well in issuing fresh notice to all such

Parties for their participation in the Revision Petition and finalise the

Revision accordingly.

8. With the above order, the Writ Petition stands disposed of.

(Biswanath Rath) Judge

M.K.Rout