Partly allowed

Keluni Dei@Sethy v. Collector,Jagatsinghpur

Orissa HC5 Apr 2017CRP/14/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court found the Civil Revision Petition maintainable. It set aside an impugned order dismissing petitions under CPC Order 22, Rule 3, Rule 9, and Limitation Act Section 5 due to the petitioner's non-appearance. The matter was remitted to the Additional District Judge for reconsideration, and the petitioner was directed to appear on 11 April 2017.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 4.12.2015 set aside; matter remitted to Additional District Judge, Jagatsinghpur for reconsideration of petitions.

Keluni Dei@Sethy Vs Collector,Jagatsinghpur — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Orissa HC (2017)

¶1

CRP No.14 of 2016
5.04.2017

¶2

 Heard Mr. Bidhayak Pattnaik, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. K.K. Mishra,
learned Additional Government Advocate for the State-opposite parties.

¶3

 Looking to the nature of the order, this Court finds, the Civil Revision Petition is v
ery much maintainable. Thus, the defect stands ignored.
 This Civil Revision Petition has been filed as against the order passed by the Additio
nal District Judge, Jagatsinghpur rejecting petitions under Order 22, Rule 3 of the C.P.C., Or
der 22 Rule 9 of C.P.C. and Section 5 of the Limitation Act as well.

¶4

 Perusal of the impugned order, it appears that the petitions have been rejected for no
nappearance of the petitioner. Since a civil right is involved in the regular first appeal, th
e applications so filed should not have been dismissed on technical ground instead of petition
ers would have been given one more opportunity.

¶5

 Under the circumstances, considering the rival contentions of the parties and as the i
mpugned order has been passed for nonappearance of the petitioner, this Court feels inclined t
o interfere in the impugned order and consequently, while setting aside the impugned order dat
ed 4.12.2015 under Annexuer-3, this Court remits the matter back to the Additional District Ju
dge, Jagatsinghpur for reconsideration of the petitions under Order 22, Rule 3 of the C.P.C.,
Order 22 Rule 9 of C.P.C. and Section 5 of the Limitation Act involving the petitioner and a d
ecision as appropriate is directed to be taken in the matter within a period of two months fro
m the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

¶6

 Petitioner is directed to appear before the Additional District Judge, Jagatsinghpur o
n 11th of April, 2017 alongwith a certified copy of this order for his proceeding in the matte
r.

¶7

 Issue urgent certified copy on proper application.

¶8

 (Biswanath Rath, J.)

¶9

Keluni Dei@Sethy v. Collector,Jagatsinghpur

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Keluni Dei@Sethy v. Collector,Jagatsinghpur

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

Gyanendra Parida Vs State of Orissa

Baman Vs State

Kotha Hari Siva Narayana Vs State of Orissa

Khirod Ch.Mallick Vs State of Odisha

Akashi Manju Kumari Vs State of Orissa

Laxmirani Panda Vs Manager,R.S.P.