Allowed

Dr.Santi Bh.Panda v. Central Bank of Indi

Orissa HC15 Feb 2016CMP/325/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This application challenged the rejection of a request to recall a witness for cross-examination. The High Court set aside the impugned order, noting it was rejected only due to non-payment of costs rather than on merit, and directed the trial court to reconsider the application afresh.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order set aside; application to be considered afresh upon payment of Rs.200/- within ten days.

Dr.Santi Bh.Panda Vs Central Bank of Indi — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Orissa HC (2016)

¶1

CMP NO.325 OF 2014

¶2

15.2.2016

¶3

 Counter affidavit on behalf of the opposite party is filed in Court today, which be ke
pt on record.

¶4

 Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶5

 This application has been filed challenging the order dated 07.2.2014, passed by the l
earned Addl. Civil Judge (Sr.Divn.), Dhenkanal, in C.S.No.268 of 2012/81 of 2013, rejecting th
e application of the defendant-petitioner, filed under Order 18 Rule 17 CPC, to recall P.W.1
for his cross-examination.

¶6

 Learned counsel for the defendant-petitioner submits that only because the petitioner
had not deposited the cost of Rs.200/-, which had been directed to be paid to the plaintiff vi
de order dated 27.1.2014, the application of the defendant filed under Order 18 Rule 17 CPC ha
s been rejected. It is submitted that unless the witness (P.W.1) examined on behalf of the pla
intiff Bank is recalled for his cross-examination, the defendant-petitioner shall be seriously
 prejudiced.

¶7

 Learned counsel for the opposite party-Bank submits that as the defendant-petitioner h
ad failed to pay the cost, as had been directed by order dated 27.1.2014, the impugned order c
annot be faulted.

¶8

 Considering the submissions made and keeping in view the fact that the application of
the petitioner has not been rejected on merit but for non-payment of cost, the impugned order
is set aside.

¶9

 Learned trial Court shall consider the application of the petitioner filed under Order
 18 Rule 17 CPC afresh, giving opportunity of hearing to the parties, subject to the payment o
f cost of Rs.200/- to the opposite party-Bank within ten days hence

¶10

 CMP is accordingly disposed of.

¶11

 Issue urgent certified copy as per rules.

¶12

 (S.C.PARIJA, J.)

¶13

Dr.Santi Bh.Panda v. Central Bank of Indi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr.Santi Bh.Panda v. Central Bank of Indi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gobinda Behera Vs Narendra Behera

Sriram G.I.C.Ltd. Vs Pravati Bhoi

Attarun Nisa Bibi Vs Motawalli

Renubala Ray Vs Rabi Narayan Das

Haguri Sahoo Vs Kartika Sahoo

Legal Manager,M/S.Cholamandalam Ms Insurance Co.Ltd. Vs Mohan Mallick