HC of Orissa allowed an application for restoration of OJC No.6239/1998 dismissed for non-prosecution, finding that the petitioner's counsel was absent due to mislisting and sufficient cause existed.
The application for restoration of OJC No.6239/1998 is allowed. The order dated 03.11.2017 dismissing the OJC is recalled.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CMAPL No.522 of 2017
Choudhury Ramesh Chandra Dash …. Petitioners and others
Mr. G.D. Kar, Advocate
-versus-
….
State of Odisha and others Opposite Parties
Mr. D. Mund, AGA
CORAM:
JUSTICE S.K. MISHRA
JUSTICE SAVITRI RATHO
ORDER
Order No. 15.09.2021
1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.
Page 1 of 2
// 2 //
on merit. Moreover, he contends that on the date of listing i.e. 03.11.2017, the name of his senior counsel was not mentioned in the cause list. Hence, he could not know about the listing of the case. Admittedly, the petitioners were prevented by sufficient cause in appearing through their Advocate in the Court when the matter was called on 03.11.2017.
cost.
(S.K. Mishra )
Judge
(Savitri Ratho )
Judge
pcd
Page 2 of 2
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the OJC No.6239/1998 ought to be restored after dismissal for non-prosecution due to counsel absence on the cause list.
Whether prejudice to the petitioner due to mislisting justifies the recall of the dismissal order.
Whether the application for restoration succeeds on finding sufficient cause for non-appearance.
Choudhury Ramesh Chandra Dash
State of Odisha
S.K. Mishra
Savitri Ratho
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
