Disposed

Braja Kishore Deb v. Sangeeta Devi

Orissa HC22 Aug 2022CMP/1454/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court disposed of a compromise petition assailing an interim order refusing cross-examination in an attachment suit. Citing an eight-year delay, the Court held no purpose would be served in proceeding, vacated the interim stay order from a prior Misc. Case, and allowed fresh applications if a cause of action survives.

What did the court decide?

The compromise petition was disposed of and the interim stay order was vacated.

Braja Kishore Deb Vs Sangeeta Devi — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Orissa HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CMP NO. 1454 OF 2016

¶2

Braja Kishore Deb and others

¶3

….. Petitioners

¶4

Mr. Ashok Mohanty, Senior Advocate -versus-

¶5

Sangeeta Devi and another …. Opp. Parties

¶6

Mr. A.K. Mishra, Advocate

¶7

CORAM:

¶8

JUSTICE K.R. MOHAPATRA

ORDER

Order No.

22.08.2022

This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

¶14

Although this matter is listed for orders for extension of the interim order, on consent of learned counsel for the parties, the CMP is taken up for final disposal.

¶15

This CMP has been filed assailing the order dated 9^th September, 2016 (Annexure-8) passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Puri in I.A. No.273 of 2013 (arising out of C.S. No. 472 of 2013), whereby he rejected an application filed by Defendant No.1 to cross-examine the deponents of the affidavit filed on behalf of the Plaintiffs in the said I.A..

¶16

This Court while issuing notice in the matter vide order dated 27^th September, 2016 in Misc. Case No.1523 of 2016 has directed that there shall be stay operation of the order dated 9^th September, 2016 passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Puri in I.A. No.273 of 2013 vide Annexure-8 till the next date.

¶17

It is submitted by learned counsel for the parties that the said interim order is continuing till date.

¶18

Page 1 of 2

¶19

// 2 //

¶20

Taking into consideration that the I.A. was filed in the year, 2013 under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 C.P.C. and in the meantime, more than eight years have elapsed, this Court is of the considered opinion that no fruitful purpose will be served in proceeding with the said I.A., which is disposed of accordingly. It is, however, observed that if any cause of action still survives, parties will be at liberty to file fresh application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 C.P.C., which may be considered in accordance with law.

¶21

With the aforesaid observation, the CMP is disposed of. 8. The interim order dated 27^th September, 2016 passed in Misc. Case No.1523 of 29016 stands vacated.

¶22

Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper

¶23

application. (K.R. Mohapatra) Judge

¶24

bks

¶25

Page 2 of 2

Braja Kishore Deb v. Sangeeta Devi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Braja Kishore Deb v. Sangeeta Devi

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

Ratikanta Dey Vs State of Odisha

Gopa Panda Vs Appellate Authority Cum Chairman, Rta, Cuttack

Susanta Kumar Mall Vs State of Odisha

Prasant Ku.Mallik Vs Bandana Badajena

Satyanarayan Behera Vs Ashok Kumar Behera

Manoranjan Sahoo Vs Seema Sahu