Goura Mohan Mohanta Vs Basa Soren

1. This Civil Misc. Application under Order41, Rule 19 of the CPC, 1908 has been filed by the petitioners (those were the appellants in the Second Appeal vide S.A. No.85 of 1999) against the Opposite Parties (those were the respondents in the Second Appeal vide S.A. No.85 of 1999) praying for readmission of the S.A. No.85 of 1999 which was dismissed on dated 10.01.2024 for the default of the appellants (petitioners).

¶17

2. The factual backgrounds of this CMAPL under Order 41, Rule 19 of the CPC, 1908, which prompted the petitioners for filing of the same is that, the date of hearing of the 2^nd Appeal vide S.A. No.85 of 1999 was fixed to 10.01.2024, but due to nonreflection of the name of the newly engaged counsel in the cause list i.e. Mr. N.K. Sahu & Associates, he (learned counsel Mr. N.K. Sahu) was not presented before the Court on dated 10.01.2024, for which, due to non-appearance of the appellants or their learned counsel on dated 10.01.2024, the 2^nd Appeal vide S.A. No.85 of 1999 was dismissed on that day i.e. on 10.01.2024 for

¶18

non-prosecution from the side of the appellants.

¶19

CMAPL No.26 of 2024

¶20

Page 2 of 6

¶21

Thereafter, on dated 19.01.2024, the appellants of the 2^nd Appeal vide S.A. No.85 of 1999 being the petitioners filed this CMAPL under Order 41, Rule 19 of the CPC, 1908 for readmission of that 2^nd Appeal after setting aside its dismissal order dated 10.01.2024 stating the aforesaid grounds for hearing of the same on merit or else they (petitioners) shall be prejudiced seriously and sustain irreparable loss, because, the petitioners (Appellants in the 2^nd Appeal vide S.A. No.85 of 1999) are interested for hearing of that 2^nd Appeal on merit.

¶22

In spite of sufficiency of notices against the Opp. Parties (those were the respondents in the 2^nd Appeal vide S.A. No.85 of 1999) none appeared for the hearing of the CMAPL. For which, this CMAPL was heard only from the side of the petitioners. 3. It appears from the record that, soon after the dismissal of the 2^nd Appeal vide S.A. No.85 of 1999 for the default of the petitioners i.e. for non-prosecution from the side of the petitioners (appellants in the 2^nd Appeal vide S.A. No.85 of 1999), they (petitioners) filed this CMAPL for readmission of that 2^nd Appeal after setting aside its dismissal order stating that, they (petitioners) are interested for hearing of that 2^nd Appeal on merit

¶23

CMAPL No.26 of 2024

¶24

Page 3 of 6

¶25

and due to non-mentioning of the names of the newly engaged learned counsels i.e. Mr. N.K. Sahu and his Associates in the cause list, their learned counsel Mr. N.K. Sahu could not remain present on dated 10.01.2024 in the Court.

¶26

4. It is the settled propositions of law that,

¶27

“when law of technicalities and the courses of substantial justice are pitted against each other, in that case, the courses of substantial justice deserves to be preferred. Because, Courts should always be in favour of rendering substantial justice to the parties rather than disposing of the suits/appeals on technicalities, only for the reason that, the rights of the parties are to be adjudicated upon merits of the controversies. A party should not be thrown out merely on technicalities. Law Courts will lose their efficacy, if they will not possibly respond to the needs of the societies. Technicalities there might be many, but the justice oriented approach ought not to be thwarted on the basis of such technicalities, since technicalities cannot and ought not to outweigh the courses of justice.”

¶28

5. The purpose of enactment and object of the Civil Procedure

¶29

Code is to enable both the parties to get the hearing of the case on merit.

¶30

On this aspect, the propositions of law has already been clarified by the Apex Court in the ratio of the following decisions:

¶31

I. In a case between Sumitibai & Others Vs. Paras Finance Co. & Others reported in IV (2007) CLT 37 (SC) (Para No.8) that, the purpose of enactment

¶32

CMAPL No.26 of 2024

¶33

Page 4 of 6

¶34

and object of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) is really rules of natural justice. Its purpose is to enable both parties to get hearing.

¶35

II. In a case between Alka Gupta vs Narender Kumar Gupta reported in 2010 (10) SCC 141 that, Code of Civil Procedure is nothing, but an exhaustive compilation-cum-enumeration of the principles of natural justice with reference to a proceeding in a court of law.

¶36

6. Here in this matter at hand, when the petitioners have approached the Court very promptly by filing this CMAPL on dated 19.01.2024 after dismissal of their 2^nd Appeal vide S.A. No.85 of 1999 on dated 10.01.2024 for its readmission and when the petitioners are eagerly interested for hearing of the 2^nd Appeal on merit after setting aside of the impugned order of dismissal passed on dated 10.01.2024 and when the main object and purpose of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 is to enable both the parties to get hearing of the suit/appeal/case on merit instead of disposing of the same on any technical ground, for no other reason, but only in order to avoid the multiplicity of litigations between the parties, then, at this juncture, by applying the principles of law enunciated in the ratio of the aforesaid decisions of the Apex Court to this CMAPL at hand, I find no justification to

¶37

CMAPL No.26 of 2024

¶38

Page 5 of 6

¶39

disallow the CMAPL filed by the petitioners (appellants in the 2^nd Appeal vide S.A. No.85 of 1999).

¶40

7. Hence, this CMAPL filed by the petitioners is allowed on merit.

¶41

The impugned order of dismissal of the 2^nd Appeal vide S.A. No.85 of 1999 passed on dated 10.01.2024 is set aside.

¶42

8. The 2^nd Appeal vide S.A. No.85 of 1999 is restored/relegated to its position as it was on dated 10.01.2024 prior to its dismissal.

¶43

As such, the 2^nd Appeal vide S.A. No.85 of 1999 be restored to the position as it was on dated 10.01.2024 before its dismissal.

¶44

Registry is directed to pass necessary order in the 2^nd Appeal vide S.A. No.85 of 1999 on the basis of the Judgment passed in this CMAPL.

¶45

9. As such, this CMAPL filed by the petitioners (appellants) is disposed of finally.

¶46

(ANANDA CHANDRA BEHERA)

¶47

JUDGE

¶48

Signature Not Verified

¶49

Digitally Signed Signed by: RATI RANJAN NAYAK Reason: Authentication High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Location: High Court of Orissa, Cutt The 14 .11. 2025 ack, // Rati Ranjan Nayak, India. Date: 17-Nov-2025 19:49:04 Sr. Stenographer.

¶50

CMAPL No.26 of 2024

¶51

Page 6 of 6

Goura Mohan Mohanta v. Basa Soren

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Goura Mohan Mohanta v. Basa Soren

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

Anusaya Das Vs Commnr.Consolidatio

Bidyadhar Baliarsingh Vs Jogendra Baliarsingh

Kiran Tarai Vs State of Odisha

Bijaya Kumar Behera Vs State of Odisha

Dipti Biswal Vs Addl Dist.Magistrate Cum Dist.Registrar, Khordha

Manoranjan Biswal Vs Addl-District Magistrate Cum-District Registrar, Khordha