Premchand Chhatai vs M/S Tata Power Southern
2026 Latest Caselaw 451 Ori

Orissa High Court

Premchand Chhatai vs M/S Tata Power Southern on 19 January, 2026

Author: Chittaranjan Dash

Bench: Chittaranjan Dash

              IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
                                    WA No.3102 of 2024

            Premchand Chhatai           ....                               Appellant
                                                              Represented by Adv.-
                                                                Mr. B.S. Das, Adv.
                                                                  Mr. G. Kar, Adv.

                                             -versus-

            M/s Tata Power Southern ....                                 Respondents
            Odisha Distribution Ltd.,                         Represented by Adv.-
            Berhampur, Ganjam and
            Ors.

            CORAM:
                          JUSTICE DIXIT KRISHNA SHRIPAD
                          JUSTICE CHITTARANJAN DASH

                                              ORDER

19.01.2026 Order No.

08. This Intra-Court Appeal seeks to lay a challenge to a learned Single Judge's order dated 09.10.2024 entered in appellant's WP(C) No.20345 of 2015, whereby the adoption deed presented in support of claim for family pension having been doubted, matter as to the genuineness of the deed is entrusted for the inquiry at the hands of the Collector of the District concerned.

2. Learned counsel for the Appellant vehemently argues that, although it is open to the learned Single Judge to seek report as to the genuineness of the adoption deed in question, he could not have made much observation which would sway away the remandee in forming an

independent opinion after holding an inquiry. He also notifies to the Court the last line of the impugned order which says that the Writ Petition is dismissed. Thus, according to him there are errors apparent on the face of the record, warranting interference of this Court.

3. Having heard learned counsel for the Appellant and having perused the impugned order, we decline indulgence in the matter making it clear that whatever observations made by the learned Single Judge as to the genuineness of the adoption deed should be construed not as taking away the liberty of the remandee to hold an appropriate inquiry and arrive at independent finding as to the genuineness of the said deed. Secondly, the sages of law have said that the words in the order like 'dismissed', 'allowed' 'rejected' and 'disposed off' would not be given much significance, inasmuch as what is to be seen is the intent of the judgment or order as emanating from the text & context vide Kumarappa v. B. Manjunath, AIR 1991 Kant 73.

With the above observations, the Appeal is disposed off, treating the impugned order as such not attaching much significance to the word 'dismissed'. All contentions of the parties are otherwise kept open

(Dixit Krishna Shripad) Judge

Digitally Signed (Chittaranjan Dash) Signed by: PRASANT KUMAR SAHOO Designation: Personal Assistant Judge Reason: Authentication Prasant Location: Orissa Hgih Court Date: 20-Jan-2026 13:46:17