Allowed

V.Upendra Raju v. State

Orissa HC2 Apr 2024CMAPL/307/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Orissa allowed a curative misc. application to remand a writ petition dismissed for non-prosecution. The dismissal resulted from the petitioner's counsel absence on specific dates due to illness. The court restored the writ file and directed further listing subject to payment of costs.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner to pay Rs. 1,000 to Advocates' Welfare Fund; W.P.(C) No.8202 of 2014 restored to file and listed.

V.Upendra Raju Vs State — Writ and Judicial Review | Orissa HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

CMAPL No.307 of 2014

¶3

1) V.upendra Raju

¶4

.....

¶5

Petitioner

¶6

Represented By Adv. –

Mr. Santosh Ku. Dash

-versus-

1) State

..... Opposite Parties

¶11

Represented By Adv. -

¶12

Mr. P.C. Das, A.S.C.

¶13

CORAM:

¶14

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA

ORDER

02.04.2024

Order No.

1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical Mode).

¶19

The defects, as pointed out by the Stamp Reporter, be ignored.

¶20

There is no delay in filing the present CMAPL.

¶21

On perusal of the CMAPL application, it appears that the writ application bearing W.P.(C) No.8202 of 2014 filed by the Petitioner was dismissed due to non-prosecution vide order dated 14.10.2014.

¶22

The order sheet of the writ application reveals that the same was taken up on 14.07.2014 and an interim order was also

¶23

Page 1 of 1

¶24

passed on the very same day. However, none had appeared on behalf of the Petitioner on 11.08.2014 and 14.10.2014. Therefore, the writ petition has been dismissed due to non-prosecution vide order dated 14.10.2014.

¶25

It is submitted that due to illness of the counsel for the Petitioner, he could not remain present in Court. As such, the writ petition has been dismissed due to non-prosecution.

¶26

Keeping in view the principle that due to laches of the counsel, the party should not suffer, this Court is inclined to allow the CMAPL subject to payment of cost.

¶27

Accordingly, CMAPL stands allowed subject to Petitioner paying cost of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand) to the Advocates’ Welfare Fund of the Orissa High Court Bar Association within a week hence.

¶28

The W.P.(C) No.8202 of 2014 is restored to its file.

¶29

Registry is directed to list the W.P.(C) No.8202 of 2014 before the appropriate Bench forthwith.

¶30

( A.K. Mohapatra) Judge

¶31

Signature Not Verified

¶32

Digitally Signed Signed by: DEBASIS AECH Reason: Authentication Location: OHC, CUTTACK. Date: 04-Apr-2024 17:45:58

¶33

Page 2 of 2

V.Upendra Raju v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V.Upendra Raju v. State

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

Iswar Bhoi Vs State of Odisha

Rabindra Kumar Jena Vs State of Odisha

Jagannath Das Vs Chief Post Manager General, Odisha Circle

Suvendu Behera Vs State of Odisha

Hanumant Singh@Hanuman Vs State of Odisha

Prakash Kumar Sinha Vs Principal Chief Personel Officer, S.E.Railway, Kolkata