The High Court of Orissa dismissed an application seeking restoration of a dismissed Second Appeal. The Court held that the dismissal was due to non-compliance with a prior order and found the restoration application misconceived.
None. The CMAPL application was dismissed with no order as to cost.
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.378 OF 2021
Srimati Jatan Dei
…. Petitioner
Mr. Trilochan Nanda, Advocate
-versus-
Bansidhar Moharana & Others
…. Opposite Parties,
CORAM:
MR. JUSTICE D.DASH ORDER
Order No.
14.07.2022
The Applications under consideration are with the prayers to restore the Second Appeal which has been dismissed by order dated 24.04.2018 by condoning delay in filing the Application for restoration of the Appeal.
Page 1 of 2
// 2 //
The Second Appeal had been admitted on 11.09.1995 by order dated 14.07.2003. Therefore, for non-compliance of peremptory order passed on 32.04.2003, the Appeal stood dismissed in so far as Respondent No.2(a), 2(b) and 4 (b) are concerned. This order continued to hold the field till 23.04.2018.
On 24.04.2018, this Court having found the decree under challenge to be joint and indivisible, in view of the dismissal of the Appeal as against Respondent Nos.2(a), 2(b) and 4(b), has passed an order to the effect that the Appeal cannot proceed against the rest of the Respondent. Accordingly, the Appeal has been dismissed.
(D. Dash), Judge.
Narayan
Page 2 of 2
1 issue framed by the court
Whether to restore a Second Appeal dismissed due to non-compliance with an order dated 32.04.2003.
Srimati Jatan Dei
Bansidhar Moharana & Others
D. Dash
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
