Petitioners sought restoration of a Second Appeal dismissed for non-prosecution after a single-day default. The Court held that since the appeal involved substantive rights, restoration was in the larger interest of justice.
Second Appeal No.115 of 1988 restored to file; cost of Rs.500/- payable to Opposite Party No.1 within one week.
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.149 of 2011
Arnapurna @ Sweta Kar and others …. Petitioners
Mr. B.B. Rath, Advocate
-versus-
…. Nikunja Kishore Rath and another Opposite Parties
Mr. B.C. Pradhan, Advocate for O.P. No.1
CORAM: JUSTICE A.K.MOHAPATRA
ORDER
01.11.2023
Order No.
// 2 //
Signature Not Verified
Debasis Digitally Signed Signed by: DEBASIS AECH Designation: Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: OHC CUTTACK Date: 04-Nov-2023 15:44:47
(A.K. Mohapatra) Judge
Page 2 of 2
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a Second Appeal dismissed for non-prosecution due to a single-day default can be restored for consideration?
Whether the High Court was justified in restoring the Second Appeal given the lapse of more than a decade?
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Arnapurna @ Sweta Kar and others
Nikunja Kishore Rath and another
A.K. Mohapatra
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
