Disposed

Golap Ghadei v. Maguni Charan Kamala

Orissa HC26 Jul 2021CMP/150/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Orissa at Cuttack disposed of a Contempt Petition. The petitioner, a judgment debtor in execution proceedings, challenged an order allowing a third party to be impleaded, alleging violation of natural justice due to non-service of the petition. The court observed that the petitioner must approach the executing court first to assail the recording made by it. The CMP was disposed o

What did the court decide?

CMP disposed of with direction to file application in executing court to delete observations.

Golap Ghadei Vs Maguni Charan Kamala — Execution and Attachment | Orissa HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

CMP No.150 of 2021

¶3

Golap Ghadei

¶4

Petitioner

¶5

Mr.Akshaya Kumar Pandey, Advocate

¶6

-versus-

¶7

…. Maguni Charan Kamala and another Opp. Parties

¶8

CORAM: JUSTICE K.R. MOHAPATRA

ORDER

Order No.

26.07.2021

This matter is taken up through video conferencing mode.

¶14

Petitioner, in this CMP seeks to assail the order dated 23^rd February, 2021 passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Khordha in Execution Case No.05 of 2019, whereby the executing Court allowed the petition filed by Opposite Party No.2-Anuj Pankaj Patra under Order-XXII Rule 10 read with Order-I Rule 10 CPC to be impleaded as D.Hr. to the execution proceeding.

¶15

Mr.Pandey, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that order dated 23^rd February, 2021 has been passed without serving copy of the petition on the Petitioner, who is JDr. in Execution Case No.05 of 2019. As such, she was not provided with reasonable opportunity of being heard. Thus, the impugned order is violative of principles of natural justice and void ab initio and accordingly the same is not sustainable.

¶16

On perusal of the impugned order, it appears that the copy of the petition was attached to the Execution Case record as learned counsel for the JDr./Petitioner refused to accept the

¶17

Page 1 of 2

¶18

// 2 //

¶19

same. The Opposite Party No.2 had also filed a memo stating that the counsel for the DHr. refused to accept the same. Mr.Pandey, learned counsel, however, submits that no such copy was ever served on learned counsel for the JDr. Thus, occasion for refusal to receive such petition does not arise.

¶20

In that view of the matter, this Court is of the considered opinion that in view of the settled position of law, the Petitioner has to approach the executing Court in assailing the correctness of the recording made by it.

¶21

Accordingly, it is observed that in the event the Petitioner files an application to delete the observation made against the JDr./Petitioner against the impugned order and to contest the petition, the executing Court is expected to consider the same giving opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned

¶22

With the aforesaid observation, the CMP is disposed of. 8. As the restrictions due to resurgence of COVID-19 situation are continuing, learned counsel for the parties may utilize a printout of the order available in the High Court’s website, at par with certified copy, subject to attestation by the concerned Advocate, in the manner prescribed vide Court’s Notice No.4587 dated 25th March, 2020 as modified by Court’s Notice No.4798 dated 15^th April, 2021.

¶23

s.s.satapathy

¶24

(K.R. Mohapatra) Judge

¶25

Page 2 of 2

Golap Ghadei v. Maguni Charan Kamala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Golap Ghadei v. Maguni Charan Kamala

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

Pradipta Ku Satapathy Vs State of Orissa

Sunil Ku.Sahoo Vs State of Orissa

Chandramani Swain Vs State of Odisha

Narendra Kumar Nayak Vs Tahasildar, Kendrapara

Pinakshi Sahoo Vs Baijayanti Sahoo

Jogendra Pradhan Vs Anirudha Behera