Disposed¶41

Sarbeswar Sethi v. Manasranjan Sethi

Orissa HC25 Sept 2024CRP/1/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Withdrawal of civil revision petition; conversion of CRP to writ petition refused to be entertained, withdrawal permitted with liberty; Section 115 CPC; Odisha Grama Panchayat Act election dispute; Appellate Authority order dated 14.12.2023 District and Sessions Judge Bhadrak; F.A.O. No.31/2023 interim stay vacated; return of certified copies Annexures-2 & 8; I.A. No. 75 of 2024 dismissed as not pressed; Sarbeswar Sethi v. Mansranjan Sethi; High Court of Orissa; M.S. Raman, J.; order dated 25.09.2024.

What did the court decide?

Permission to withdraw the Civil Revision Petition with liberty to approach the appropriate forum; direction to the Registry to return Annexures-2 & 8 on substitution of authenticated copies; interim order dated 18.01.2024 vacated. ¶41

Sarbeswar Sethi Vs Manasranjan Sethi — Orissa HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶41

Issue for consideration

Whether the Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, arising from an election dispute, could be converted into a Writ Petition (Civil). +1 more

¶37

Ratio / Principle

On the conceded position, the petitioner was permitted to withdraw the Civil Revision Petition, with liberty reserved to approach the appropriate forum if so advised.

¶41

Key takeaways

The Registry was instructed to return the documents at Annexures-2 & 8 to the petitioner by substituting authenticated copies thereof.ratio¶41
The CRP stood disposed of as withdrawn with the liberty granted, and the interim order passed earlier (the stay of F.A.O. No.31/2023 ordered on 18.01.2024) stood vacated.ratio¶41

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Orissa (Cuttack), CRP No. 1 of 2024, decided 25.09.2024 by M.S. Raman, J. — Civil Revision Petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure challenging the order dated 14.12.2023 of the District and Sessions Judge, Bhadrak, acting as Appellate Authority under the Odisha Grama Panchayat Act in an election dispute. An earlier application (I.A. No. 75 of 2024) for conversion of the CRP into a Writ Petition (Civil) was dismissed as not pressed on 19.09.2024; on 25.09.2024 the petitioner, by memo, sought leave to withdraw the CRP to file a writ petition and prayed for return of certified copies of Annexures-2 & 8. The Court permitted withdrawal with liberty to approach the appropriate forum, directed the Registry to return Annexures-2 & 8 on substitution of authenticated copies, disposed of the CRP as withdrawn, and vacated the interim order dated 18.01.2024 by which further proceedings in F.A.O. No.31/2023 before the District Judge, Bhadrak had been stayed. Maintainability of the revision petition and the question of conversion were left undecided.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

CRP No. 1 of 2024

¶3

Sarbeswar Sethi …. Petitioner Mr. Ashutosh Mishra, Advocate along with Mr. Janaki Kanta Mohapatra, Advocate

¶4

-versus-

¶5

…. Mansranjan Sethi and another Opposite Parties Mr. Jyoti Ranjan Deo, Advocate for O.P. No.1 Mr. Sailaza Nandan Das, Addl. Standing Counsel for O.P.No.2

¶6

CORAM:

¶7

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MURAHARI SRI RAMAN

¶8

Order No. 05.

¶9

ORDER 25.09.2024

¶10

This matter is taken up through Hybrid Mode.

¶11

On the last occasion this Court has passed the following order on 19.09.2024:-

¶12

“ I.A. No. 75 of 2024

¶13

This matter is taken up through Hybrid Mode.

¶14

2. This application, filed by the petitioner, seeks to change the nomenclature from CRP to Writ Petition (Civil).

¶15

3. Mr. Gautam Misra, Senior Advocate along with Mr. J.R. Deo, learned counsel for the opposite party submitted that the prayer is misconceived as such a course is not permissible. They also submitted that the impugned order dated 14.12.2023 of the learned District and Sessions Judge, Bhadrak in the capacity of Appellate Authority under the Odisha Grama Panchayat Act emanates from a case relating to election dispute

¶16

Page 1 of 4

¶17

and realising that the petitioner has approached wrong forum, filed the I.A..

¶18

4. At this stage, Mr.Janaki Kanta Mahapatra, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that he does not want to press this application.

¶19

5. Accordingly, the I.A. stands dismissed. CRP No.1 of 2024.

¶20

6. Mr. Janaki Kanta Mahapatra, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks a week’s accommodation for obtaining appropriate instruction.

¶21

7. List this matter on 25.09.2024.

¶22

8. It is made clear that this Court on 18.01.2024 passed the following order:-

¶23

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

¶24

2. Heard the learned counsel for the Petitioner.

¶25

3. Issue notice to the Opposite Parties by registered post with A.D. by fixing a short returnable date. Requisites shall be filed within three working days hence.

¶26

4. While issuing notice, this Court makes it clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the maintainability on the revision petition which shall be considered at the time of filing of the revision petition.

¶27

5. List this case in the week commencing 11th March, 2024.

¶28

I.A. No.1 of 2024 .

¶29

6. Heard.

¶30

7. Notice as above.

¶31

8. Accept one set of process fee.

¶32

9. As an interim measure, it is directed that further proceeding in F.A.O. No.31/2023 pending in the file of learned District Judge, Bhadrak shall remain stayed till the next date. Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application.”

¶33

9. Mr. Gautam Misra, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the Civil Revision Petition itself is not maintainable before

¶34

Page 2 of 4

¶35

this Court, yet the interim order passed on 18.01.2024 as referred to above causes prejudice to the opposite party no.1.

¶36

10. Considering the submissions of the counsel for both sides, this Court is of the opinion that on the next date of listing, if appropriate step is not taken by the petitioner, the interim order as reflected in the order dated 18.01.2024 shall stand vacated.

¶37

Today, Mr. Ashutosh Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that this matter emanates from a case relating to election dispute. Inadvertently, this Civil Revision Petition has been filed under Section 115 of Code of Civil Procedure, so he prays to allow conversation of this Civil Revision Petition to Writ Petition.

¶38

Mr. Jyoti Ranjan Deo, learned counsel for the opposite parties vehemently opposed to such prayer of the learned counsel for the petitioner, as this Court has no jurisdiction to issue any such directions to convert the Civil Revision Petition into a writ petition and he further submitted that this being jurisdictional issue, such a prayer cannot be acceded to by this Court.

¶39

At this stage, Mr. Ashutosh Misrha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, by filing a memo in Court today, seeks permission to withdraw the Civil Revision Petition to file writ petition and prays for return of certified copies of Annexure-2 & 8. The said memo be taken on record.

¶40

Page 3 of 4

¶41

On such conceded position, the petitioner is allowed to withdraw the Civil Revision Petition reserving liberty to approach appropriate forum, if he is so advised. 7. Registry is instructed to return the documents at Annexures-2 & 8 by substituting authenticated copies thereof. 8. In view of the aforesaid situation, the CRP stands disposed of as withdrawn with the liberty as granted above. 9. Interim order passed earlier stands vacated.

¶42

(M.S. Raman) Judge

¶43

Suchitra

¶44

Signature Not Verified

¶45

Digitally Signed Signed by: SUCHITRA BEHERA Designation: JUNIOR STENOGRAPHER Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, C UTT ACK Date: 25-Sep-2024 18:00:17

¶46

Page 4 of 4

Sarbeswar Sethi v. Manasranjan Sethi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sarbeswar Sethi v. Manasranjan Sethi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Prasanta Kumar Pani Vs MD and Ceo, Indian Bank, Chennai

Hrusikesh Sahoo Vs State of Odisha

Murali Majhi Vs State of Odisha

Akshaya Kumar Das Vs State of Odisha

Prabodha Kumar Das Vs Bhagaban Muduli

Sthitiprangya Satapathy Vs Basudev Mohapatra