Writ petition challenging a Family Court order that cryptically rejected a husband's application to recall his wife for cross-examination under CPC Order XVIII Rule 17.
Impugned order set aside; matter remanded to Family Court to consider the recall application afresh and pass a reasoned order after hearing parties.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: ROJALIN NAYAK Designation: JUNIOR STENOGRAPHER Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, C UTT ACK Date: 19-Jun-2024 10:22:27
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C). NO.9244 OF 2024 Debasmita Sahoo
…. Petitioner
Mr. Digamber Sethi, Advocate -versus-
Ranjan Kumar Sahoo …. Opp. Party
CORAM:
JUSTICE K.R. MOHAPATRA
ORDER
Order No.
18.06.2024
Page 1 of 2
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: ROJALIN NAYAK Designation: JUNIOR STENOGRAPHER Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, C UTT ACK Date: 19-Jun-2024 10:22:27
under Annexure-4. The impugned order is a cryptic and nonspeaking one. As such, the same is not sustainable.
Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application.
(K.R. Mohapatra) Judge
Rojalin
Page 2 of 2
1 issue framed by the court
Whether a cryptic and non-speaking order rejecting a recall application under Order XVIII Rule 17 CPC is sustainable.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Debasmita Sahoo
Ranjan Kumar Sahoo
K.R. Mohapatra
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
