Orissa High Court
M/S. Bluline Resorts Pvt. Ltd vs M/S. Hotel Sea Point Pvt. Ltd on 3 April, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRP No.35 of 2023
(In the matter of an application under Section 115 of the Code of
Civil Procedure)
M/s. Bluline Resorts Pvt. Ltd., .... Petitioner
represented through its Managing
Director, Mr. Debasis Patnaik
-versus-
M/s. Hotel Sea Point Pvt. Ltd, .... Opposite Party
represented through its Managing
Director, Usha Jena
Appeared in this case:-
For Petitioner : Mr. Avijit Pal, Advocate
For Opposite Party : Mr. G. Samantaray, Advocate
assisted by Mr. S. Routray,
Advocate
Appeared in this case:-
CORAM:
JUSTICE A.C. BEHERA
JUDGMENT
Date of hearing : 03.03.2025 / date of judgment : 03.04.2025
A.C. Behera, J. This revision under Section 115 of the C.P.C., 1908 has been filed
by the petitioner(defendant) challenging an order dated 18.08.2023
passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge(Sr. Division), Puri in C.S.
No.462 of 2017.
2. The Opposite Party and the plaintiff in this revision are the
plaintiff and defendant respectively before the trial court in the suit vide
C.S. No.462 of 2017.
3. The factual backgrounds of this revision, which prompted the
petitioner for filing of the same is that, due to non-substitution of the
legal heirs of the Managing Director of the plaintiff-company in time in
the suit vide C.S. No.462 of 2017, as per order dated 06.07.2018, the trial
court passed an order for abatement of the suit of the plaintiff-company
vide C.S. No.462 of 2017. Thereafter, the plaintiff filed a petition on
dated 26.07.2018 on the basis of the resolution of the Board of Directors
of the plaintiff-company praying for recalling the said order of abatement
passed on dated 06.07.2018 in C.S. No.462 of 2017 on the ground that,
the suit was filed by the plaintiff-company on being represented through
its Managing Director Mr. Durga Charan Routray and for non-
substitution of the legal heirs of Durga Charan Routray after the death of
that Durga Charan Routray, as per law, the suit vide C.S. No.462 of 2017
filed by the plaintiff-company cannot be abated. Because, the suit was
filed by the plaintiff-company, not by its Managing Director and the
plaintiff-company has not died. For which, the plaintiff-company filed a
petition on dated 26.07.2018 under Section 151 of the C.P.C., 1908
praying for recalling the above order dated 06.07.2018, to which, the
defendant-company objected on the ground that, after the order of
abatement passed on dated 06.07.2018 by the learned trial court in the
suit vide C.S. No.462 of 2017, the petition dated 26.07.2018 of the
plaintiff-company under Section 151 of the C.P.C. to recall the said order
dated 06.07.2018 is not maintainable.
4. After hearing from the learned counsels of both the sides, the trial
court, as per order dated 18.08.2023 recalled to the order dated
06.07.2018 assigning the reasons that, the plaintiff-company cannot be
treated as dead on account of death of its Managing Director, Durga
Charan Routray, as the right to sue continues upon its surviving Director
or any other authorized person of the plaintiff-company.
5. On being dissatisfied with the said order dated 18.08.2023 passed
in C.S. No.462 of 2017, the defendant challenged the same by filing this
revision under Section 115 of the C.P.C.
6. I have already heard from the learned counsels of both the sides.
7. When, it is the clarified propositions of law that, company is a
juristic person and on the death of the representative of the plaintiff-
company in the suit, the suit filed by the plaintiff-company cannot be
abated, as the plaintiff-company has not died, then at this juncture, the
impugned order dated 18.08.2023 passed by the learned trial court
recalling the order of abatement cannot be held as illegal or erroneous.
Because, on account of the death of the representative of the plaintiff-
company, the plaintiff-company cannot be held as dead. For which, the
question of interfering with the impugned order dated 18.08.2023 passed
by the trial court in C.S. No.462 of 2017 through this revision filed by the
petitioner/defendant does not arise.
8. Therefore, there is no merit in the revision filed by the
petitioner/defendant. The same must fail.
9. In result, the revision filed by the petitioner/defendant is dismissed
on contest, but, without cost.
10. Accordingly, the revision filed by the petitioner/defendant is
disposed of finally.
( A.C. Behera )
Judge
Orissa High Court, Cuttack
The 3rd of April, 2025/ Jagabandhu, P.A.
Designation: Personal Assistant
