Orissa High Court
Monalisha Khosha vs Tapan Kumar Parichha on 30 January, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
MATA No. 81 of 2022
Monalisha Khosha ..... Appellant
Mr. D.P. Das, Adv.
Vs.
Tapan Kumar Parichha ..... Respondent
Mr. M. Nandy, Adv.
CORAM:
JUSTICE S.TALAPATRA
JUSTICE SAVITRI RATHO
ORDER
30.01.2023
Order No.
07. 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.
2. Learned counsel appearing for the Respondent has filed an
objection against the appeal. The same is taken on record without
taking any cognizance of it.
3. Mr. D.P. Das, learned counsel appears for the Appellant.
4. Mr. M.Nandy, learned counsel appears for the Respondent.
5. His name appears in the Vakalatnama, but the Registry has
not reflected his name in the brief or in the cause title and has
reflected the name of Mr.M Pandey. Registry is directed to reflect
the name of Mr.M. Nandy as the counsel for the Respondent and
delete the name of Mr. M.Pandey.
6. A chance perusal of the office notes reveal that the appellant
had filed two interim applications alongwith the appeal being I.A 92
of 2022 for condonation of delay and I.A. 93 of 2022 for stay.
7. As the stamp report indicated that there was no delay as per
order of the Supreme Court, while admitting the appeal and issuing
notice vide order dated 02.08.2022, it had been inter alia observed in
I.A. No. 92 of 2022 as follows:
"3. As per the calculation made by the Stamp Reporter of this
Court , it is found that , there is no delay in preferring the
appeal. This petition is completely unnecessary".
8. Inspite of this order, the Superintendent in charge has indicated
in the office note on 24.08.2022 that "Notice in limitation issued to
Sole respondent...." This is followed by another erroneous and
careless office note on 29.08.2022 that " I.A.No. 92 / 2022 is at fl. B
for stay" when I.A.No 93 of 2022 is at Flag "B" for stay and I.A.
No. 92 of 2022 under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is at Flag "A".
9. This incorrect note continued to be reflected in the office notes
on subsequent dates as well as the cause list and had gone unnoticed
by us till today.
10. The Deputy Registrar (Judicial) is requested to direct the
concerned officer to be careful while making entries in the office
notes, as we have noticed that this is not the only case. Incorrect
office notes have been made, in a number of MATAs resulting in
confusion and wastage of time of the Court.
11. Let the matter be listed on 28.02.2022 for disposal on merit.
12. Meanwhile, Registry shall issue reminder and ensure the
procurement of LCRs before the next date.
(S.Talapatra)
Judge
(Savitri Ratho)
Judge
P.T.O.
08. I.A. No. 92 of 2022
1. This is an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act,
1963, for condonation of delay in filing the Appeal.
2. In view of order dated 02.08.2022, this I.A. is disposed of as
infructuous.
(S.Talapatra)
Judge
(Savitri Ratho)
Judge
I.A. No. 93 of 2022
09. 1. This is an application for stay of operation of the impugned
judgment and decree dated 05.08.2021 passed in C.P.No. 21/2019.
2. In view of Section 15 of the Hindu Marriage Act, we do not
think any order staying the operation of the impugned judgment is
called for. However, we permit the appellant to inform the
respondent regarding pendency of this appeal.
3. Accordingly, this application stands disposed of.
4. Urgent certified copy be supplied as per rules.
(S.Talapatra)
Judge
Sukanta
(Savitri Ratho)
Judge
