Dismissed¶16

Banchhanidhi Nayak v. Jagannath Prasad Das

Orissa HC29 Jan 2024WP(C)/42970/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

W.P.(C) No.42970 of 2023, Banchhanidhi Nayak & anr. v. Jagannath Prasad Das & anr., High Court of Orissa, Order dated 29.01.2024, Justice Sanjay Kumar Mishra. Nil award in M.A.C Case No.565 of 2015 dated 15.03.2018 for claimant's non-appearance; allegation of counsel's failure to communicate; concession that no recall application was filed below; writ petition dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to seek recall of the order dated 15.03.2018. No statutes or precedents cited.

What did the court decide?

Liberty to move before the court below for recalling the order dated 15.03.2018 passed in M.A.C. Case No.565 of 2015. ¶16

Banchhanidhi Nayak Vs Jagannath Prasad Das — Orissa HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

W.P.(C) No.42970 of 2023

¶3

Banchhanidhi Nayak & anr.

¶4

…. Petitioners

¶5

Mr. D. Patnaik, Advocate

¶6

-versus-

¶7

Jagannath Prasad Das & anr. …. Opposite Parties

¶8

CORAM: JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MISHRA

¶9

Order No. 02.

¶10

ORDER 29.01.2024

¶11

This matter is taken up through hybrid mode. 2. This writ petition has been preferred against the order dated 15.03.2018 passed in M.A.C Case No.565 of 2015, vide which the court below disposed of the matter and passed a nil award with an observation that since a long period the Petitioner neither attending the court nor took any steps, which shows that he has no interest to proceed with the case.

¶12

Mr. D. Patnaik, learned counsel for the Petitioners submits, after filing of the claim application, the petitioners were totally in dark as to the outcome of the said litigation and the concerned lawyer did not communicate or contact the petitioners to do the needful. As a result of which M.A.C. Case No.565 of 2015 got disposed of by passing a nil award. He further submits, law is well settled in the said regard. Because of the latches on the part of the lawyer the litigant should not suffer.

¶13

A query being made, learned Counsel for the Petitioners fairly concedes before this Court that before approaching this Court, no application was moved before the court below for recalling the said order showing sufficient cause and to give an opportunity to the present Petitioners (claimants before the court below) to substantiate their claim made before the Court below on merit.

¶14

At this stage, learned Counsel for the Petitioners prays for withdrawal of the writ petition with liberty to move before the court below for recalling the order dated 15.03.2018 passed in

¶15

M.A.C. Case No.565 of 2015.

¶16

In view of such prayer made, the writ petition stands dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty as prayed for.

¶17

Banita

¶18

(S.K. MISHRA)
JUDGE

¶19

Signature Not Verified

¶20

Digitally Signed Signed by: BANITA PRIYADARSHINI PALEI Designation: SR. STENOGRAPHER Reason: AUTHENTICATION Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, C UTT ACK Date: 30-Jan-2024 19:00:46

¶21

Page 2 of 2

Banchhanidhi Nayak v. Jagannath Prasad Das

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Banchhanidhi Nayak v. Jagannath Prasad Das

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

NTPC Ltd., Angul Vs M/S Blue Star Malleables Pvt. Ltd., Jharkhand

Krushna Ch.Sahani Vs Collector,Bhadrak

Asadhu Guru Vs Land Acquisition,Zone Officer, Khurda Road

Maa Saladevi Wshg Vs State of Odisha

Kamal Lochan Mohanty Vs Rajib Lochan Mohanty

Maa Jagadamba Women Self Help Group, Tundara Vs State of Orissa