Allowed

Hadu Kata v. Narendra Kata and Ors.

Orissa HC21 Aug 2023WP(C)/21492/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging rejection of application to file a sketch map with the consolidated plaint. Court held omission was inadvertent as amendment allowed attachment; set aside impugned order and directed trial court to accept map within two weeks.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order set aside; trial court directed to accept sketch map as per schedule within two weeks along with certified copy of this order.

Hadu Kata Vs Narendra Kata and Ors. — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Orissa HC (2023)

¶1

Signature Not Verified

¶2

Digitally Signed Signed by: MADHUSMITA SAHOO Designation: Junior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 22-Aug-2023 17:55:32

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No. 21492 OF 2011

¶4

Hadu Kata

¶5

…. Petitioner

¶6

Mr. Debendra Kumar Sahoo, Advocate

¶7

-versus-

¶8

Narendra Kata and others

¶9

…. Opp. Parties None

¶10

CORAM:

¶11

JUSTICE K.R. MOHAPATRA

ORDER

Order No.

21.08.2023

This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

¶17

Order dated 23^rd June, 2011 (Annexure-5) passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Titilagarh in T.S. No.23 of 1997 is under challenge in this writ petition, whereby the prayer to file the sketch map, which could not be appended to the consolidated plaint, has been rejected.

¶18

Mr. Sahoo, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that after filing of the written statement by Defendants-Opposite Parties, the Plaintiff-Petitioner filed an application for amendment of the plaint. In the proposed amendment, the Plaintiff-Petitioner also enclosed the sketch map to be appended to the consolidated plaint. The said application for amendment was allowed. Accordingly, the Petitioner filed the consolidated plaint incorporating the proposed amendment. But, inadvertently, the sketch map could not be filed along with the consolidated plaint. Hence, an application was filed on 26^th April, 2010 (Annexure-4) to file the sketch map to be appended to the consolidated plaint. A formal objection to the said application was filed. Learned trial Court without appreciating

¶19

Page 1 of 3

¶20

Signature Not Verified

¶21

// 2 //

¶22

Digitally Signed Signed by: MADHUSMITA SAHOO Designation: Junior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 22-Aug-2023 17:55:32

¶23

that filing of the consolidated plaint without a sketch map was an inadvertent mistake on the part of the Plaintiff, rejected the said application holding that the sketch map bears no signature either of learned Advocate or the Amin, who prepared the sketch map. The authenticity of the sketch map was also doubted by learned trial Court.

¶24

It is submitted that since the amendment sought for was allowed which contained the sketch map also, learned trial Court should have allowed the Plaintiff-Petitioner to file the sketch map to be appended to the consolidated plaint. He, therefore, prays for setting aside the impugned order under Annexure-5 and to direct learned trial Court to accept the sketch map to be appended to the consolidated plaint.

¶25

Although the Opposite Party No.1 is represented through learned counsel, but none appears on his behalf at the time of call.

¶26

Considering the submission made by learned counsel for the Petitioner and on perusal of the copy of the amendment application, which is filed during course of hearing of the writ petition, this Court finds that the sketch map to be appended to the consolidated plaint form part of the proposed amendment. Since the amendment sought for was allowed, it is deemed that the Plaintiff-Petitioner was also allowed to file the sketch map along with the consolidated plaint. Inadvertently, the said sketch map could not be filed at the time of filing of the consolidated plaint. The same appears to be an omission on the part of the Plaintiff-Petitioner, which was not intentional.

¶27

Page 2 of 3

¶28

Signature Not Verified

¶29

// 3 //

¶30

Digitally Signed Signed by: MADHUSMITA SAHOO Designation: Junior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 22-Aug-2023 17:55:32

¶31

In that view of the matter, learned trial Court should have allowed the Petitioner to file the sketch map to be appended to the consolidated plaint. The authenticity of the sketch map can be gone into at the time of hearing of the suit.

¶32

In view of the above, the impugned order under Annexure-5 is set aside. Learned trial Court is directed to accept the sketch map as per the schedule of the amendment application to be appended to the consolidated plaint. The same shall be filed within a period of two weeks hence along with certified copy of this order.

¶33

With the aforesaid observation and direction, the writ petition is disposed of.

¶34

Since the suit is of the year, 1997, learned trial Court should make all endeavour to see that it is disposed of at an early date, if the same is still pending.

¶35

Interim order dated 18^th August, 2011 passed in Misc. Case No.12324 of 2011 stands vacated.

¶36

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

¶37

¶38

(K.R. Mohapatra) Judge

¶39

Page 3 of 3

Hadu Kata v. Narendra Kata and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hadu Kata v. Narendra Kata and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Suryamani Durga Vs Manju Durga

Narayan Kedia Vs Prasanta Ku.Patnaik

Albinus Kisan Vs Peter Kisan

Sandhyarani Debi Vs Giridhari Pradhan

Bhikari Khatua Vs Kanhu Charan Swain

Ramani R.Kara Vs Kalpana Sahoo