Partly allowed

Pradipta Ku.Panda v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC5 Sept 2024RVWPET/348/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A review petition against a coordinate Bench order that disposed of an appeal citing a Supreme Court decision without hearing counsel for either party. Finding the appeal was decided in the absence of both sides' counsel, the court allowed the review on that limited ground, recalled the earlier order, and directed relisting of the appeal for hearing.

What did the court decide?

Order dated 16.10.2019 recalled; review allowed on limited ground of non-hearing; appeal to be listed before appropriate Bench.

Pradipta Ku.Panda Vs State of Odisha — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Orissa HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

RVWPET No.348 of 2019

¶3

Pradipta Kumar Panda …. Petitioner

¶4

Mr. Sameer Kumar Das, Advocate

¶5

-versus-

¶6

State of Odisha and others

¶7

…. Opposite Parties

¶8

Mr. Arnav Behera, Addl. Standing Counsel

¶9

CORAM:

¶10

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MURAHARI SRI RAMAN

¶11

Order No. 02.

¶12

ORDER 05.09.2024

¶13

This matter is taken up through Hybrid Mode.

¶14

This review petition has been filed by the petitioner to review the order dated 16.10.2019 passed by a coordinate Bench of this Court in FAO No.344 of 2018, which reads as thus:-

¶15

“None appears for the parties.

¶16

2. Delay in filing the appeal, if any is condoned.

¶17

3. The issue involved in the appeal is now squarely covered by the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court passed in Civil Appeal No.7295 of 2019 (arising out of S.L.P.(C) No.8343 of 2019 [State of Odisha & Another vs. Anup Kumar Senapati & Another] disposed of on 16.09.2019.

¶18

4. Since the issue is now covered by the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and nothing remains to be decided, it will not be appropriate for this Court to issue notice to the respondent(s), which may cause unnecessary legal expenses and to keep the mater pending.

¶19

5. In that view of the matter and in terms of the aforesaid judgement, the appeal stands allowed and disposed of accordingly. The parties will be governed by the aforesaid decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court dated 16.09.2019 passed in Civil Appeal No.7295 of 2019.

¶20

Page 1 of 4

¶21

6. However, if the respondent(s) is/are aggrieved by this order, it is open for the respondent(s) to file application within a period of thirty days from today for revival of the appeal.

¶22

The Misc. Case(s)/I.A(s) connected to the appeal, if any is/are also disposed of.

¶23

Certified copy of this order be granted on proper application.”

¶24

Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as the learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State. Perused the review Petition as well as the documents annexed thereto.

¶25

On perusal of the records, it appears that the S.R. has pointed out certain defects. Learned counsel for the petitioner undertakes to remove such defects within three working days.

¶26

At the outset, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that order dated 16.10.2019 has been passed by coordinate Bench of this Court without hearing the appellant in FAO No.344 of 2018. He further contended that the aforesaid order was passed in FAO in absence of the appellant’s counsel as well as Respondents’ counsel. The order sheet reveals that only the Petitioner was present in person. He further submitted that the Petitioner, who was not well versed with the proceeding of the Court, did not submit anything and he was there to seek time as lawyers were on strike on that date. However, learned coordinate Bench in absence of the counsel for both sides disposed of the appeal referring to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court passed in Civil Appeal No.7295 of 2019 in the matter of State of Odisha and another v. Anup Kumar Senapati and another disposed

¶27

Page 2 of 4

¶28

of on 16.10.2019. Learned coordinate Bench without hearing the counsels has come to a conclusion that the case of the Petitioner is covered by the aforesaid judgment in Anup Kumar Senapati’s case. Accordingly, the said appeal was disposed of in the light of the judgment in Anup Kumar Senapati’s case. On further perusal of the order sheet, it appears that neither the facts of the present case nor the law laid down in the aforesaid case has been discussed.

¶29

Learned counsel for the Petitioner further referring to Paragraph-6 of the order dated 16.10.2019 contended that the learned coordinate Bench while passing the order dated 16.10.2019 granted liberty to the parties or any person aggrieved to file an application for revival of the appeal within 30 days from the date of that order. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further contended that instead of filing an application as directed in Paragraph-6 of the order dated 16.10.2019 the Petitioner has filed this Review Petition on 13.11.2019 which is within 30 days’ time granted by the learned coordinate Bench.

¶30

Learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State on the other hand submitted that the case of the Petitioner is covered by the aforesaid judgment, therefore, the coordinate Bench has rightly disposed of the matter. He however does not dispute the fact that the order has been passed in absence of the learned counsel for the appellant as well as respondents.

¶31

In view of the aforesaid background and in the manner in which the appeal has been disposed of, this Court is of the considered view that the parties be given opportunity of presenting

¶32

Page 3 of 4

¶33

their case in the appeal. Accordingly, the Review Application is allowed on such limited ground and the order dated 16.10.2019 is recalled. Further, the Registry is directed to list this matter before the appropriate assigned Bench for hearing of the appeal. It is however, made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case and the review is being allowed only as the learned counsel for the parties were not present when the order dated 16.10.2019 was passed.

¶34

With the aforesaid observation, the Review Petition is disposed of.

¶35

(M.S. Raman) Judge

¶36

Suchitra

¶37

Signature Not Verified

¶38

Digitally Signed Signed by: SUCHITRA BEHERA Designation: JUNIOR STENOGRAPHER Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, C UTT ACK Date: 06-Sep-2024 18:24:12

¶39

Page 4 of 4

Pradipta Ku.Panda v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pradipta Ku.Panda v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dr. Avijit Das Vs State of Odisha

Dr. Ajit Das Vs State of Odisha

Biswajit Gardia Vs State of Odisha

Suresh Ch.Das Vs State of Odisha

Rashmikanta Satapathy Vs Samanta Heramba Kumar Patasani

Md.Sadique Ali Vs State of Odisha