Disposed

Santilata Ray v. Secretary, General Administration Deptt.

Orissa HC12 Aug 2022CMP/595/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner challenged a trial court order rejecting an interim injunction application under Order XXXIX Rule 3 CPC without dispensing with service of notice on State-defendant functionaries. The High Court disposed of the contempt petition, observing that since the respondents are State functionaries represented by a Government Pleader, the petitioner should serve the application on the Pleade

What did the court decide?

The CMP was disposed of with an observation to serve the interim application on the Government Pleader, enabling the trial court to consider it within fifteen days.

Santilata Ray Vs Secretary, General… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Orissa HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

CMP No. 595 OF 2021

¶3

Santilata Ray …. Petitioner

¶4

Mr. Sudhansu Sekhar Jena, Advocate

¶5

-versus-

¶6

…. Secretary, General Administration Opp. Parties Department and another

¶7

Mr. Swayambhu Mishra, Additional Standing Counsel

¶8

CORAM:

¶9

JUSTICE K.R. MOHAPATRA

ORDER

Order No.

12.08.2022

This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

¶15

The Petitioner in this CMP seeks to assail the order dated 5^th October, 2021 passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bhubaneswar in I.A.No.01 of 2021 (arising out of C.S. No.2034 of 2021), whereby he rejected an application under Order XXXIX Rule 3 C.P.C. filed along with aforesaid interim application.

¶16

Mr. Jena, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that along with the plaint in C.S. No.2034 of 2021, the PlaintiffPetitioner filed I.A. No.01 of 2021 under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 C.P.C. As there was urgency in the matter, the Plaintiff also filed an application under Order XXXIX Rule 3 C.P.C. to pass an ad interim order of injunction by dispensing with service of notice on the Defendants, who are functionaries of State. Learned trial Court without considering the urgency in the matter, rejected the application under XXXIX Rule 3 C.P.C. vide order dated 5^th October, 2021 (Annexure-2).

¶17

Page 1 of 3

¶18

// 2 //

¶19

Hence, finding no order alternative, the Petitioner has moved this Court in the CMP.

¶20

Mr. Mishra, learned Additional Standing Counsel for the Opposite Parties submits that copy of the CMP has not yet been served on the State. Since the functionaries of the State are the Defendants in the suit, the Petitioner can move the application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 C.P.C. by serving notice on the Defendants therein through alternate mode.

¶21

Taking into consideration the submission made by learned counsel for the parties, this Court finds that the Defendants in the suit are the functionaries of the State and they are being represented by learned Government Pleader/Additional Government Pleader attached to the said Court.

¶22

In view of the above, this Court, without interfering with the order impugned herein, disposes of the CMP with an observation that in the event, the Petitioner serves a copy of the interim application along with the plaint on learned Government Pleader/Additional Government Pleader attached to the Court of learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bhubaneswar to defend the case of the Defendants therein, the same shall be accepted. On service of the copy of the interim application along with plaint, the Defendants will file their objection to the IA within a period of fifteen days therefrom and in that event, learned trial Court shall do well to consider the I.A. No.01 of 2021 as

¶23

Page 2 of 3

¶24

// 3 //

¶25

expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of fifteen days therefrom.

¶26

It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case of the Petitioner before learned trial Court.

¶27

Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application.

¶28

¶29

(K.R. Mohapatra)
Judge

¶30

Page 3 of 3

Santilata Ray v. Secretary, General Administration Deptt.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Santilata Ray v. Secretary, General Administration Deptt.

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

Mahesh Rohidas Vs R.T.O., Jharsuguda

Binati Das Vs Deepak Chandra Das

Rudra Narayan Pradhan Vs State of Odisha

Jayanta Behura Vs Ee, Tpcodl

Binda Debi Vs State of Odisha

Purusottam Nayak Vs Basanti Nayak