Allowed¶24

Rajendra Adhikari v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC8 Dec 2025CMAPL/120/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Re-admission of second appeal dismissed for default; restoration of appeal dismissed in absence of appellants; Order 41 Rule 19 CPC; dismissal order dated 26.02.2024 set aside; appeal relegated to pre-dismissal position; multiplicity of litigations avoided; object of CPC to enable both parties to get hearing; Sumiti Bai vrs. Paras Finance Co. (2007) 10 SCC 82 relied on; S.A. No.102 of 1990; CMAPL No.120 of 2025; Orissa High Court; State of Odisha; Tahasildar Jeypore; listed for hearing 12.01.2026.

What did the court decide?

Re-admission of second appeal S.A. No.102 of 1990; dismissal order dated 26.02.2024 set aside; appeal restored to its pre-dismissal position and listed for hearing on 12.01.2026; appellants' counsel directed to serve a copy of the appeal memo on the respondents' counsel. ¶24

Rajendra Adhikari Vs State of Odisha — Orissa HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶24

Issue for consideration

Whether the miscellaneous application (CMAPL) filed by the appellants under Order 41 Rule 19 CPC for re-admission of second appeal S.A. No.102 of 1990, dismissed for default on 26.02.2024, should be allowed.

¶18

Court's answer

Since both parties were interested in having the second appeal heard on merits, the object of the C.P.C. is to enable both parties to get a hearing, and allowing the application avoids multiplicity of litigation, the Court found no justification to disallow the CMAPL under Order 41 Rule 19 CPC.

¶23

Ratio / Principle

The CMAPL filed on behalf of the petitioners is allowed on merit.

¶24

Key takeaways

The order of dismissal of the second appeal S.A. No.102 of 1990 passed on 26.02.2024 is set aside.ratio¶25
Consequent upon setting aside the dismissal, the second appeal is relegated to the position it occupied prior to its dismissal on 26.02.2024.ratio¶28
In the consequential order in S.A. No.102 of 1990, the appeal is re-admitted to its original pre-dismissal position and listed for hearing on 12.01.2026, with the appellants' counsel directed to serve a copy of the appeal memo on the respondents' counsel.ratio

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

CMAPL No.120 of 2025 (High Court of Orissa at Cuttack, Ananda Chandra Behera J., 08.12.2025): Miscellaneous application under Order 41 Rule 19 CPC by the appellants in second appeal S.A. No.102 of 1990, which stood dismissed for default on 26.02.2024 as none appeared for them when the appeal was called for hearing, prayed for re-admission of the appeal; the Opposite Parties raised no objection. Relying on the ratio in Sumiti Bai and others vrs. Paras Finance Co. and others, 2007 Vol-10 SCC-82 (the object of the Civil Procedure Code being to enable both parties to get a hearing), and to avoid multiplicity of litigation, the Court found no justification to disallow the application and allowed the CMAPL on merit, set aside the dismissal order dated 26.02.2024, relegated the appeal to its pre-dismissal position, and listed it for hearing on 12.01.2026 with a direction to serve the appeal memo on the respondents' counsel.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CMAPL No.120 of 2025

¶2

1) Rajendra Adhikari

¶3

..... Petitioners

¶4

1. Sradhanjali Adhikari Represented By Adv. - 3) Rupa Adhikari Ajit Parija 4) Sukalpa Adhikari

¶5

1. Suragana Adhikari

¶6

-versus-

¶7

1) State Of Odisha

¶8

1. Tahasildar Jeypore,main Road,jeypore

¶9

..... Opposite Parties Represented By Adv. –

¶10

Mr. G. Mohanty, SC

¶11

CORAM:

¶12

MR. JUSTICE ANANDA CHANDRA BEHERA

ORDER

08.12.2025

Order No.

1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

¶17

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the Opposite Parties.

¶18

This Miscellaneous Application has been filed by the petitioners(those were the appellants in 2^nd appeal vide S.A. No.102 of 1990) under Order-41, Rule-19 of the C.P.C. praying for re-admission of the 2^nd appeal vide S.A. No.102 of 1990, which was dismissed for the default of the petitioners(appellants) on dated 26.02.2024, because, none had appeared from the side of the appellants on dated 26.2.2024 at the time of calling for hearing of the 2^nd appeal. For which, the petitioners have prayed for re-admission of the 2^nd appeal.

¶19

Page 1 of 3.

¶20

To, which, the Opposite Parties have no objection.

¶21

The law has also been clarified by the Apex Court in the ratio of the decision reported in 2007 Vol-10 SCC-82 : Sumiti Bai and others vrs. Paras Finance Co. and others .

¶22

“The Civil Procedure Code is really rules of natural justice, which are set out in great and elaborate detail. Its purpose is to enable both parties to get hearing”

¶23

Here, in this case at hand, when both the parties are interested for hearing of the 2^nd appeal vide S.A. No.102 of 1990, (which has been dismissed for default of the appellants on dated 26.02.2024) on merit and when the object of the C.P.C. is to enable both the parties to get a hearing on merit, for no other reason, but, in order to void the multiplicity of litigations between the parties, then at this juncture, by taking the above propositions of law into account, I found no justification to disallow the CMAPL filed on behalf of the petitioners under Order-41, Rule-19 of the C.P.C.

¶24

Hence, the CMAPL filed on behalf of the petitioners is allowed on merit.

¶25

The order of dismissal of the 2^nd appeal vide S.A. No.102 of 1990 passed on dated 26.02.2024 is set aside.

¶26

Due to setting aside of the dismissal order dated 26.02.2024 passed in S.A. No.102 of 1990, the 2^nd

¶27

Page 2 of 3.

¶28

appeal is to be relegated to the position, as it was prior to its dismissal on dated 26.02.2024.

¶29

Hence, the CMAPL is disposed of finally.

¶30

( ANANDA CHANDRA BEHERA) Judge

¶31

S.A. No.102 of 1990

¶32

1. As per final order dated 08.12.2025 passed in CMAPL No.120 of 2025, this 2^nd appeal is re-admitted to its original position as it, which was on dated 26.02.2024 prior to its dismissal and the same be listed 12.01.2026 for hearing.

¶33

Learned counsel for the appellants is directed serve a copy of the appeal memo on the learned counsel for the Respondents.

¶34

( ANANDA CHANDRA BEHERA) Judge

¶35

Jagabandhu

¶36

Signature Not Verified

¶37

Digitally Signed Signed by: JAGABANDHU BEHERA Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: OHC, CUTTACK Date: 09-Dec-2025 17:33:17

¶38

Page 3 of 3.

Rajendra Adhikari v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajendra Adhikari v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Md.Moinuddin Vs Joint Commnr.Consol

Md.Moinuddin Vs Tahasildar,Rourkela

Kunta Ku.Sahu Vs Settlement Officer

Pathigili Vekata Vs v.Rama Chandra

Sk.Jamshid Vs State of Odisha

Banamali Jena @ Jana Vs State of Odisha