Orissa High Court
Sanatan Nandi & Others vs Hara Bewa & Others on 20 July, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
S.A. No.104 of 1987
Sanatan Nandi & Others .... Appellants
M/s. B.H. Mohanty, Advocate & Associates
-Versus-
Hara Bewa & Others .... Respondents
CORAM:
MR. JUSTICE R.K. PATTANAIK
ORDER
20.07.2023
Order No.
Misc. Case No.310 of 2007
12. 1. Heard Mr. Mohanty, learned counsel for the
petitioners/appellants.
2. None appears for the opposite parties/respondents.
3. Instant petition is filed by the petitioners/appellants for
recall of this Court's order dated 25th September, 2007 and to
restore the appeal to its file.
4. Gone through the order dated 25th September, 2007 which
directed the petitioners/appellants to file requisites as against
respondent No.1(b) with his correct address which could not be
complied with and as a result, the appeal was dismissed on 7th
December, 2007.
5. Mr. Mohanty, learned counsel for the petitioners/appellants
submits that the petition had already been filed by then but it could
not be placed on record and as a result, the order dated 7th
December, 2007 was passed
6. Considering the fact that it was at the stage of issuance of
appeal notice to respondent No.1(b) that this appeal was dismissed
for non-compliance of the Court's order dated 25th September,
2007 failing to file requisites, the Court is of the view that in the
interest of justice, the order of dismissal dated 7th December, 2007
should be recalled restoring the appeal to its file for a disposal
according to law.
7. Consequently, the petition stands allowed. As a necessary
corollary, the order dated 25th September, 2007 and consequential
dismissal order dated 7th December, 2007 are hereby recalled.
8. Resultantly, the appeal stands restored to file.
(R.K. Pattanaik)
Judge
S.A. No.104 of 1987
13. 1. In view of the order in Misc. Case No. 310 of 2007, the
appeal stands restored to its file.
2. Mr. Mohanty, learned counsel for the appellants
undertakes to file the requisites for issuance of appeal notice to
respondent No.1 (b) within next three working days. In the event,
the requisites are filed, the appeal notice shall be issued to
respondent No.1(b),
3. List on 21st August, 2023 for appearance of respondent
No.1(b) and for further orders.
(R.K. Pattanaik)
Judge
Misc. Case No. 1 of 2014
14. 1. Instant petition is filed for substitution of the LRs of the
deceased-appellant No.1.
2. Mr. Mohanty, learned counsel for the petitioner/appellants
submits that the substitution has been applied for is within time as
appellant No.1 died on 7th November, 2013, whereas, the
application was moved on 3rd February, 2014.
3. No objection is received.
4. Since the substitution is within limitation, the Court is of the
considered view that it should be allowed with the substitution of
the LRs of the deceased-appellant No.1.
5. Consequently, the petition stands allowed. In the result,
appellants No.1(a) to 1(d) are directed to be substituted in place of
deceased-appellant No.1.
(R.K. Pattanaik)
Judge
Misc. Case No. 192 of 2017
15. 1. Instant petition is filed for substitution of the LRs of the
deceased-appellant No.3.
2. Mr. Mohanty, learned counsel for the petitioner/appellants
submits that the substitution has been applied for is within time as
appellant No.3 died on 5th July, 2017, whereas, the application was
moved on 3rd October, 2017.
3. No objection is received.
4. Since the substitution is within limitation, the Court is of the
considered view that it should be allowed with the substitution of
the LRs of the deceased-appellant No.3.
5. Consequently, the petition stands allowed. In the result,
appellants No.3(a) to 1(d) are directed to be substituted in place of
deceased-appellant No.1.
(R.K. Pattanaik)
Judge
I.A.No. 25 of 2019
16. 1. Instant petition is filed for substitution of the LRs of the
deceased-appellant No.1(a).
2. Mr. Mohanty, learned counsel for the petitioner/appellants
submits that the substitution has been applied for is within time as
appellant No.1(a) died on 7th December, 2018, whereas, the
application was moved on 30th January, 2019.
3. No objection is received.
4. Since the substitution is within limitation, the Court is of the
considered view that it should be allowed with the substitution of
the LRs of the deceased-appellant No.1(a).
5. Consequently, the petition stands allowed. In the result,
appellants No.1(a)(i) to 1(a) (ii) are directed to be substituted in
place of deceased-appellant No.1(a).
(R.K. Pattanaik)
Judge
I.A.No. 45 of 2021
17. 1. Instant petition is filed for substitution of the LRs of the
deceased-appellant No.1(a)(ii).
2. Mr. Mohanty, learned counsel for the petitioner/appellants
submits that the substitution has been applied for is within time as
appellant No.1(a)(ii) died on 4th April, 2021, whereas, the
application was moved on 2nd July,2021.
3. No objection is received.
4. Since the substitution is within limitation, the Court is of the
considered view that it should be allowed with the substitution of
the LRs of the deceased-appellant No.1(a)(ii).
5. Consequently, the petition stands allowed. In the result,
appellants No.1(a)(ii)(A) to 1(a) (ii)(C) are directed to be substituted
in place of deceased-appellant No.1(a)(ii).
6. Mr. Mohanty, learned counsel for the appellants is directed
to be filed a consolidated cause title of the Appeal Memorandum
before the next date incorporating the parties substituted.
(R.K. Pattanaik)
Judge
I.A.No. 24 of 2019
18. 1. Instant petition is filed by the petitioners/appellants under
Order VI Rule 17 read with Order I Rule-10 of the Code of Civil
Procedure to implead one of the parties in appeal on the ground
stated therein.
2. Mr. Mohanty, learned counsel for the petitioner/appellants
submits that one Nrusingha Charan Nandi is a party to the suit as
defendant No.4 and also before the lower Appellate Court as
respondent No.4 but has been inadvertently left out in present
appeal, so therefore, necessary amendment is required with his
impletion.
3. Gone through the judgments of the learned courts below.
It appears that said Nrusingha Charan Nandi was a party in the suit
as well as in appeal in T.A. No. 12 of 1979, however, he has been
left out in the present appeal which is by inadvertence.
4. Considering the submission of Mr. Mohanty, learned
counsel for the appellants, the Court is of the view that the said
Nrusingha Charan Nandi should be added as one of the appellants
as appellant No.4 to the Appeal Memorandum.
5. Accordingly, it is ordered.
6. Consequently, the I.A stands allowed.
7. Mr. Mohanty, learned counsel for the appellant is directed
to implead said Nrusingha Charan Nandi as one of the appellants in
the Appeal Memorandum by filing a consolidated cause title of the
same before the date fixed.
8. List on the date fixed.
Balaram (R.K. Pattanaik)
Judge
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BALARAM BEHERA
Designation: Senior Stenographer
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 22-Jul-2023 13:53:57
