Rinarani Behuria And Another vs Suman Bari And Another
2023 Latest Caselaw 12046 Ori

              IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
                               W.P.(C) No.13633 of 2023

Rinarani Behuria and another           .....                                     Petitioners
                                                                 Mr. B.N. Rath, Advocate
                                       Vs.
Suman Bari and another                 .....                               Opposite Parties
                                                               Mr. B.K. Sahoo, Advocate
                                                                         (for O.P. No.2)

                         CORAM: JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MISHRA

                                               ORDER

05.10.2023 Order No. The matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

02.

2. Learned Counsel for the Parties are present.

3. Though there is a noting that Counter Affidavit has not been filed, learned Counsel for the Opposite Party No.2 submits, no Counter Affidavit is necessary as the present Writ Petition is not maintainable, being preferred against a judgment passed by the Addl. District Judge- cum-MACT, Jharsuguda and there is a provision of Appeal against the said judgment.

4. Mr. Rath, learned Counsel for the Petitioners submits, though the impugned Order has been styled as judgment, in fact, the Tribunal, instead of answering all the issues, only answered issue no.1 and ordered that it lacks jurisdiction to decide the claim petition and while ordering to return the claim application, granted liberty to the Petitioners to file the same before the competent Authority. Hence, the present Writ Petition is maintainable.

5. To substantiate his submission, Mr. Rath draws attention of this court to Section 166 of the M.V. Act and relies on judgments of the apex Court, reported in 2009 (1) T.A.C. 434 (S.C.) (Mantoor Sarkar vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd and others) and 2016 (1) T.A.C. (S.C.) 337 (Malati Sarda vs. National Insurance Company Ltd and others). The same

be kept on record. Mr. Rath further submits, though there was no objection raised in the written statement as to lack of territorial jurisdiction and only the said issue was raised at the time of argument, in view of provisions enshrined under Section 21 of CPC, the court below was not justified to pass the impugned order under the garb of pronouncement of judgment.

6. Heard learned Counsel for the Parties.

7. Hearing concluded. Judgment is reserved.

(S.K.MISHRA) JUDGE Padma

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: PADMA CHARAN DASH Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 06-Oct-2023 21:02:17