Allowed

Niranjan Satapathy v. Pravakar Sathpathy

Orissa HC12 Aug 2024CMAPL/50/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners sought condonation of a 416-day delay in filing an application to restore a writ petition concerning landed property under consolidation law, dismissed for non-prosecution. Delay was condoned; the dismissal order dated 15.12.2022 was set aside and the writ petition restored.

What did the court decide?

Delay condoned, order dated 15.12.2022 dismissed non-prosecution set aside, writ petition restored to file.

Niranjan Satapathy Vs Pravakar Sathpathy — Property and Title | Orissa HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CMAPL No.50 of 2024

¶2

Niranjan Satpathy and others …. Petitioners Mr. Sidhartha Mishra 1, Advocate

¶3

-versus-

¶4

Pravakar Sathpathy and others …. Opposite Parties

¶5

Mr. Pravat Ranjan Sutar, Advocate for O.P. No.7

¶6

CORAM:

¶7

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MURAHARI SRI RAMAN

Order No.

ORDER

12.08.2024

I.A. No.74 of 2024

¶13

This matter is taken up through Hybrid Mode.

¶14

This application has been filed by the petitioners for condonation of delay of 416 days in filing this CMAPL application.

¶15

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for opposite party no.7.

¶16

Considering the averments and grounds taken in the Interlocutory Application, delay in filing the CMAPL is condoned. 5. Accordingly, I.A. stands disposed of.

¶17

CMAPL No.50 of 2024

¶18

This application has been filed for restoration of W.P.(C) No.20394 of 2009, which is dismissed for non-prosecution on 15.12.2022.

¶19

Perused the Office Note. It appears that AD of notice issued to OPLs of 2(a) returned with a signature named Susanta Satapathy. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that all other legal representatives have been served with the notice.

¶20

Page 1 of 2

¶21

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that since this matter relates to landed property under the Orissa Consolidation of Holdings Extent and Prevention of Fragmentation Act, 1972, this application is needed to be restored.

¶22

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶23

For the reason stated therein, the order dated 15.12.2022 passed in W.P.(C) No.20394 of 2009 is set aside and the application seeking restoration of W.P.(C) No.20394 of 2009 is allowed. Accordingly, the W.P.(C) No.20394 of 2009 is restored to its original file.

¶24

The CMAPL is disposed of accordingly.

¶25

(M.S. Raman) Judge

¶26

Laxmikant

¶27

Signature Not Verified

¶28

Digitally Signed Signed by: LAXMIKANT MOHAPATRA Designation: Senior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 12-Aug-2024 15:56:15

¶29

Page 2 of 2

Niranjan Satapathy v. Pravakar Sathpathy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Niranjan Satapathy v. Pravakar Sathpathy

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

Hari Pr.Saha Vs Ranjit Pr.Saha

Baishnab Pradhan Vs Krushna Ch. Samal

Swarna Prabha Rath Vs State of Odisha(Vig.)

Bhabagrahi Pradhan Vs Comnr,Land Records

Badrinarayan Padhy Vs Mamata Padhy

Janaki Mohanta Vs State of Odisha