Dismissed

Indian Tea Provision v. Rama K.Dasmohapatra

Orissa HC4 Aug 2023WP(C)/448/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition challenging a rejection of an objection regarding a handwriting expert report, the High Court held that since possession of the suit property had been taken over by the State, further adjudication in the writ was academic. The Court directed the petitioner to file an application in the trial court for appropriate relief, which the trial court must dispose of within one month.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to file application in trial court for appropriate relief; writ dismissed.

Indian Tea Provision Vs Rama K.Dasmohapatra — 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: 04-Aug-2023 20:12:09

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶4

W.P.(C) No. 448 OF 2011

¶5

Indian Tea Provisions Limited

¶6

…. Petitioner Mr. Partha Mukherji, Advocate

¶7

-versus-

¶8

…. Ram Krushna Dasmohapatra Opp. Party Mr. Prafulla Kumar Lenka, Advocate

¶9

CORAM: JUSTICE K.R. MOHAPATRA

ORDER

Order No.

04.08.2023

This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

¶15

Order dated 26^th November, 2010 (Annexure-1) passed

¶16

by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Puri in T.S. No.606 of 2001 is under challenge in this writ petition, whereby an application filed by the Defendant Nos.2 and 3 raising objection with regard to acceptance of report of the Handwriting expert, has been rejected.

¶17

Mr. Mukherji, learned counsel submits that Defendant No.2 is the Petitioner in this writ petition. Defendant No.2 had filed Civil Appeal No.2433 of 2019 before the Hon’ble Supreme Court assailing the order passed by this Court in RVWPET No.74 of 2012. Subsequently, M/s. Luxmi Tea Co. Pvt. Ltd was substituted in place of Defendant No.2. In the said civil appeal, the District Collector, Puri filed an affidavit stating as under:

¶18

“3. That in obedience to the order of this Hon'ble Court dated 05.03.2020, the possession of Balukhanda Khasmahal Lease hold land pertaining to Plot No. 892 measuring an area of Ac. 0.423 corresponding to Hal Plot No. 118 & 119

¶19

Page 1 of 3

¶20

// 2 //

¶21

Signature Not Verified

¶22

Digitally Signed Signed by: MADHUSMITA SAHOO Designation: Junior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 04-Aug-2023 20:12:09

¶23

bearing Khata No. 28 of Mouza Bankimuhan has been taken over on 14.03.2020 through the Tahasildar, Puri. The Tahasildar, Puri has submitted vide his letter dated 27.07.2020 that the land in question has been taken over possession on 14.03.2020. A true copy of the letter dated 27.07.2020 written by the Tahasildar, Puri is enclosed herewith as ANNEXURE A .”

¶24

In view of the fact that the possession of the suit property has already been taken over by the State, nothing remains to be adjudicated in the suit. He, therefore, submits that adjudication of this writ petition will be an academic one.

¶25

Mr. Lenka, learned counsel submits that he has entered appearance on behalf of the Opposite Party taking consent of previous counsel and has filed Vakalatnama in Court today, which is taken on record. It is his submission that in view of the changed circumstances, the Petitioner has no locus standi to maintain the writ petition.

¶26

In view of the submission made by learned counsel for the Petitioner, this Court feels that the Defendant No.2-Petitioner should move learned trial Court for appropriate relief. In the event an application is filed for appropriate relief, learned trial Court shall adjudicate the same keeping in mind the nature of the suit as well as affidavit filed by the District Collector, Puri before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.2433 of 2019, a copy of which shall be produced by the Petitioner.

¶27

It is submitted by Mr. Mukherji, learned counsel for the Petitioner that such application shall be filed within a period of two weeks, if not filed in the meantime.

¶28

Page 2 of 3

¶29

// 3 //

¶30

Signature Not Verified

¶31

Digitally Signed Signed by: MADHUSMITA SAHOO Designation: Junior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 04-Aug-2023 20:12:09

¶32

Hence, it is directed that learned trial Court shall take all steps to dispose of the said application within a period of one month from the date of production of certified copy of this order along with the application.

¶33

The writ petition is accordingly disposed of.

¶34

Interim order dated 18^th January, 2011 passed in Misc. Case No.331 of 2010 stands vacated.

¶35

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

¶36

¶37

(K.R. Mohapatra)
Judge

¶38

Page 3 of 3

Indian Tea Provision v. Rama K.Dasmohapatra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Indian Tea Provision v. Rama K.Dasmohapatra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mukta Senapati Vs Ratnakar Senapati

Bhaba Ch.Thakurana Vs Bhaskar Rout

Kailash Ch.Dalai Vs Babaji Senapati

Samarendra Samal Vs Radha Gobinda Samal

Nirupama Sahoo Vs Jitendra Pradhan

Sajal Goswami Vs Bijoy Kumar