Dismissed¶23

Sunakar Parida v. Sarat Chandra Barik

Orissa HC9 May 2025CMAPL/322/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Orissa at Cuttack; CMAPL No. 322 of 2024; Sunakar Parida and another v. Sarat Chandra Barik and another; Justice K.R. Mohapatra; order dated 09.05.2025; recall of order dated 22.08.2024; restoration of CMP No.538 of 2024 dismissed for non-prosecution; change of counsel; illness of Petitioner No.2; bona fide non-prosecution plea; insufficiency of materials; CMAPL dismissed.

What did the court decide?

On perusal of record it was not clear when the Petitioners took back the brief from the previous set of counsel with their consent, when the Petitioner fell ill, or when the case was entrusted to the present set of counsel; these dates were not stated in the CMAPL. ¶21

Sunakar Parida Vs Sarat Chandra Barik — Orissa HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SASANKA SEKHAR SATAPATHY Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA CU TTACK Date: 12-May-2025 13:25:02

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶3

CMAPL No. 322 of 2024

¶4

Sunakar Parida and another

¶5

… Petitioners Mr. R.K.Pradhan, Advocate

¶6

-versus-

¶7

Sarat Chandra Barik and another … Opposite Parties

¶8

CORAM:

¶9

JUSTICE K.R. MOHAPATRA

ORDER

Order No.

09.05.2025

This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

¶15

Petitioners in this CMAPL seek to recall the order dated 22^nd August, 2024 by which CMP No.538 of 2024 was dismissed for non-prosecution and prays for restoring the CMP to file.

¶16

It is submitted by learned counsel for the Petitioners that previously the matter was entrusted to learned counsel who filed the CMP, but subsequently, Petitioners by taking back the brief with their consent to engage any other lawyer, engaged the present set of counsels to prosecute the CMP. Due to illness of the Petitioner No.2, who was authorized to look after the matter, he could not engage Advocate in time. At that juncture, the matter was listed before this Court on 22^nd August, 2024, when learned counsel appearing previously by filing a memo stated that Petitioners have received back the brief and thus he had no instruction in the matter. Since none was present to prosecute the CMP the same was dismissed for non-prosecution.

¶17

3.1 It is further submitted that due to illness of the Petitioner No.2, who was authorized to look after the matter could not hand

¶18

Page 1 of 2

¶19

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SASANKA SEKHAR SATAPATHY Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA CU TTACK Date: 12-May-2025 13:25:02

¶20

// 2 //

¶21

over the file to the present set of counsels in time. Thus, nonprosecution of the CMP on the date when it was listed was not intentional and was bona fide. It is further submitted that unless the CMAPL is allowed, the Petitioners will suffer immensely. He, therefore, prays for allowing the CMAPL and restore the CMP. 4. Considering the submission of learned counsel for the Petitioner and on perusal of record, it is not clear as to when the Petitioners took back the brief from previous set of counsel by taking their consent. It is also not stated as to when the Petitioner fell ill. The date of entrustment of the case to present set of counsel is also not stated in the CMAPL.

¶22

In view of the insufficiency of materials explaining the ground on the basis of which the CMAPL is filed, this Court is not inclined to entertain the CMAPL.

¶23

Accordingly, the CMAPL stands dismissed.

¶24

(K.R. Mohapatra) Judge

¶25

s.s.satpathy

¶26

Page 2 of 2

Sunakar Parida v. Sarat Chandra Barik

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sunakar Parida v. Sarat Chandra Barik

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Durga Pr.Agarwalla Vs Janardan Das

Prasanta Ku.Acharjya Vs Saswata Acharjya

M/S. Eastgern Metal and Ferro Alloys Ltd. Vs Pj Minerals International Pvt. Ltd.

Deity Sri Radhakanta Mahaprabhu,Bije,Randha Vs Radhakrushna Sahu

M/S. Maithan Ispat Limited Vs State of Odisha

Burudi Kantama Vs Pedalu Bankulu