Orissa High Court
Sribachha Pani vs Duryodhan Panda And Others on 9 October, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
R.S.A. No. 302 of 2014
Sribachha Pani .... Appellant(s)
Ms.M.Mishra,Adv.
on behalf of
Mr.S.P.Misra,Sr.Adv.
-versus-
Duryodhan Panda and others .... Respondent(s)
Mr.D.Dhal,Adv.
CORAM:
JUSTICE ANANDA CHANDRA BEHERA
ORDER
Order No. 09.10.2023
05. Misc. Case Nos.436, 437 & 438 of 2016
1. This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement
(virtual/physical) mode.
2. These three Misc. Applications have been filed on behalf of
the Appellant to substitute the LRs. of the deceased Respondent
No.2 (Nidhisen @ Nishishen Panda).
3. But, the learned counsel for the Respondent No.1 submitted
that, the Respondent No.2 of this Appeal had expired during
pendency of the First Appeal, vide R.F.A. No. 07 of 2006 and in
that First Appeal the Respondent No.2 was the Appellant No.2. In
that First Appeal vide R.F.A. No.07 of 2006, order was passed to
substitute the L.Rs. of Appellant No.2 (who is Respondent No.2 in
this Second Appeal). But, inadvertently at the time of passing of
the judgment and decree in the First Appeal vide R.F.A. No.7 of
// 2 //
2006 the names of the substituted LRs. of the deceased Appellant
No.2 (who is Respondent No.2 of this Second Appeal) have not
been indicated. Likewise mistakenly/inadvertently, this Second
Appeal has been filed without incorporating the names of the
substituted LRs. of the Respondent No.2.
4. The above submission of the learned counsel for the
Respondent No.1 is not disputed by the learned counsel for the
Appellant. Now, according to the submissions of the learned
counsels of both the sides, the matter is very clear that, the
Respondent No.2 had already expired during the pendency of the
First Appeal vide R.F.A. No.7 of 2006 and his LRs. were allowed
to be substituted in the said First Appeal, for which, the question of
passing any order in these Misc. Applications i.e. in this Second
Appeal for substitution of the LRs. of the deceased Respondent
No.2 does not arise.
5. Therefore, these three Misc. Applications have become
infructuous and accordingly, these three Misc. Applications are
dismissed and disposed of finally being infructuous.
5. At this stage, the learned counsel for the Appellant
submitted that, he will file the consolidated Appeal memo
incorporating the names of the LRs. of the deceased Respondent
No.2 (those were allowed to be substituted in the First Appeal).
(A.C. Behera)
Judge
// 3 //
ORDER
Order No. 09.10.2023
06. R.S.A. No. 302 of 2014
1. Learned First Appellate Court i.e. learned Second
Additional District Judge, Cuttack is directed to incorporate the
names of the substituted LRs. of the Appellant No.2 in the
judgment and decree of the R.F.A. No.07 of 2006 on the basis of
this order, subject to the condition that, if an order regarding the
substitution of the LRs. of the Appellant No.2 will have been
passed in that R.F.A. No.7 of 2006. Appellant is at liberty to obtain
an another certified copy thereof for submission of the same in this
Second Appeal. The above compliances are to be made on or
before next date positively.
3. As per office note, notices against the Respondent Nos.3
and 4 have already been made sufficient, for which, Appellant is
directed to submit fresh requisites for issuance of notices to the
Respondent Nos.5 and 6 within a week.
4. Copies of the orders both in the Misc. Cases and Second
Appeal passed today be sent to the First Appellate Court in
reference to R.F.A. No.7 of 2006 for compliance.
5. List this matter on 13.12.2023.
(A.C. Behera)
Judge
Utkalika
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: UTKALIKA NAYAK
Reason: Authentication
Location: High Court of Orissa
Date: 10-Oct-2023 15:40:00
