Orissa High Court
Pravat Bhanu Muduli vs Rajeswari Swain .... Opposite Party on 14 May, 2025
Author: R.K. Pattanaik
Bench: R.K. Pattanaik
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CMP No. 734 of 2025
Pravat Bhanu Muduli .... Petitioner
Mr. S. K. Mishra, Advocate
-Versus-
Rajeswari Swain .... Opposite party
CORAM:
MR. JUSTICE R.K. PATTANAIK
ORDER
14.05.2025
Order No.
01. 1. Heard Mr. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner.
2. No notice is issued to the opposite party as the matter is
disposed of at the stage of admission.
3. Instant petition is filed by the petitioner challenging the
impugned decision by order dated 10th April, 2025 in C.S. No.396
of 2024 of learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Jajpur as at
Annexure-11 on the grounds stated therein.
4. Mr. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
in view of the decree in C.S. No.28 of 2019 at Annexure-12, the
opposite party has been held to be not the wife of late
Udayabhanu Muduli but filed the Vakalatnama with such a
surname as per Annexure-3, to which, an objection was filed by
the petitioner at Annexure-4 followed by an order at Annexure-5
dated 21st January, 2025 with a direction to the opposite party to
file a fresh Vakalatnama in the name of Rajeswari Swain. The
further submission is that the opposite party, in the meanwhile,
was set ex-parte by order dated 21st March, 2025 but thereafter,
on 25th March, 2025, the said order was set aside with the
acceptance of the WS from her, she having filed the Vakalatnama
in the name of Liza Swain @ Muduli @ Rajeswari Swain @ Muduli
@ Rajashree Swain @ Muduli. It is submitted that the learned
court below though set aside the ex-parte order and allowed
acceptance of the WS but at the same time, received the
Vakalatnama in that name with surname of the opposite party,
which amounts to review of the earlier order dated 21st January,
2025 i.e. Annexure-5 more so when the same was never
challenged by her, hence, to that extent, the impugned order
dated 10th April, 2025 as at Annexure-11 is liable to be interfered
with.
5. The suit is for eviction which is at the instance of the
petitioner. The status of the opposite party has been disputed with
such a surname in view of a decree in C.S. No.28 of 2019. From
the facts narrated above, the Court finds that pursuant to the order
at Annexure-5 and the opposite party having been set ex-parte,
the WS i.e. Annexure-8 was accepted with the order being set
aside by learned court below on 25th March, 2025 but receiving
the Vakalatnama again with the same surname and it was objected
to by the petitioner as per Annexure-10 but was followed by the
impugned order dated 10th April, 2025. The contention is that the
Vakalatnama with such surname of the opposite party could not
have been accepted in view of the order i.e. Annexure-5
consequent upon the judgment in the suit dated 27th December,
2023 i.e. Annexure-12. Admittedly, the Vakalatnama was earlier
not entertained with such a surname and opposite party was
directed to file a fresh one. The Court is of the view that though
the ex-parte order was set aside and it was within no time barely
after four days therefrom but in so far as, the acceptance of the
Vakalatnama with such surname of the opposite party, the
objection from the side of the petitioner is justified. In other
words, the Court is of the view that learned court below is
required to be directed to insist upon the opposite party to file a
fresh Vakalatnama in view of the order as per Annexure-5 as the
same would serve the purpose and meet the ends of justice.
6. Accordingly, it is ordered.
7. In the result, the CMP stands disposed of with the
direction as aforesaid to be complied with by learned court below.
In the circumstances, however, there is no order as to costs.
8. Urgent copy of this order be issued as per rules.
(R.K.Pattanaik)
Judge
Rojina
Designation: Junior Stenographer
