Mata Palei@Satyabhama Palei Vs Sanjukta Palei@Nayak — Orissa HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Mata Palei@Satyabhama Palei Vs Sanjukta Palei@Nayak — Orissa HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Impugned order dated 13th January, 2025 in C.S. No.350 of 2023 set aside; learned Court below directed to accept the W.S. (Annexure-4) and thereafter dispose of the suit according to law; ex parte order dated 8th January, 2024 also set aside; no order as to costs.

Issue for consideration

Whether sufficient/reasonable cause was shown for the delay of about five months in filing the written statement so as to justify setting aside the ex parte order dated 8th January, 2024 and accepting the W.S. in C.S. No.350 of 2023.

Court's answer

Having regard to the causes shown by the petitioners in Annexures-2 and 3 and the nature of the suit, wherein one of the reliefs is for partition of Schedule 'B' property, the learned Court below ought to have exercised discretion to condone the default and delay and accept the W.S.

Ratio / Principle

On the explanation offered through Annexures-2 and 3, the Court found reasonable cause made out to accept the W.S. and to set aside the ex parte order dated 8th January, 2024.

Key takeaways

Observation forming part of the reasoning: while a written statement is required to be filed within the stipulated period, delay may happen under certain circumstances, and in such a situation liberty is granted by a Court.ratio¶6

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

CMP allowed. Petition against order of learned Senior Civil Judge, Puri in C.S. No.350 of 2023 declining acceptance of the petitioners' written statement; ex parte order dated 08.01.2024 operating against them. Delay of five months and some days in filing the W.S. explained as time required to collect documents such as RoRs (Annexures-2 and 3); suit by opposite party Nos.1 and 2 sought declaration of right, title and interest, injunction, and alternate partition of Schedule 'B' property. Held, having regard to the causes shown and the nature of the suit, the trial Court ought to have exercised discretion to condone the default and delay; reasonable cause was made out. Impugned order set aside; ex parte order dated 08.01.2024 set aside; W.S. (Annexure-4) directed to be accepted and suit to proceed according to law. No order as to costs. (R.K. Pattanaik, J.)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

CMP No.197 of 2025

Mata Palei@Satyabhama Palei & others …. Petitioners Mr. H. Mohapatra, Advocate

-Versus-

Sanjukta Palei@Nayak & others …. Opposite Parties None

CORAM:

MR. JUSTICE R.K. PATTANAIK

ORDER

02.05.2025

Order No.

Heard Mr. Mohapatra, learned counsel for the petitioners.

No notices are issued to opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 as the matter is disposed of at the stage of admission. Notices vis-à-vis opposite party Nos.3 to 8 is dispensed with as the same is not necessary.

Instant petition is filed by the petitioners challenging the impugned order dated 13^th January, 2025 passed in C.S. No.350 of 2023 by learned Senior Civil Judge, Puri, whereby, an application for acceptance of W.S. from them was declined.

A copy of the plaint is at Annexure-1 and the same is perused. For acceptance of W.S., an application was moved by the petitioners, a copy of which is at Annexure-2. At the same time, the petitioners moved another application to set aside the ex parte

Page 1 of 4

order dated 8^th January, 2024 as per Annexure-3. A copy of the W.S. filed by the petitioners is at Annexure-4.

Mr. Mohapatra, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that a reasonable cause was shown by the petitioners, while seeking the ex parte order dated 8^th January, 2024 to be set aside with the acceptance of Annexure-4 but it was not entertained by learned Court below leading to passing the impugned order at Annexure-6 on the ground of absence of sufficient cause shown and proved by them. According to Mr. Mohapatra, learned counsel, the petitioners were to collect the relevant documents, hence, was the delay of five months and some days, considering which, learned Court below should have condoned the same and accepted the W.S. instead passed the impugned order. The submission is that in the interest of justice, considering the nature of relief sought for as revealed from Annexure-1 with an alternate relief of partition in respect of schedule ‘B’ property, the ex parte order dated 8^th January, 2024 is needed to be set aside with a direction to the learned Court below to accept the W.S.

Gone through the plaint i.e. Annexure-1. It is claimed that the petitioners are the coparceners and hence, to defend the suit instituted by opposite party Nos.1 and 2 seeking a relief of injunction in respect of suit schedule property with declaration of right, title and interest and injunction besides the alternate relief of partition vis-à-vis schedule ‘B’ property. As far as the default on the part of the petitioners is concerned, as per Annexure-2, it is made to understand that they were to collect documents like RoRs etc. to file the W.S., hence, was the delay. With such claim, the petitioners moved the learned Court below with a request to set aside the ex

Page 2 of 4

parte order dated 8^th January, 2024 and to accept the W.S. already ready and filed. A copy of the W.S.as at Annexure-4 is also gone through. Of course, the delay has taken place in filing of the defence by the petitioners, who are defendant Nos. 1, 3 and 5. The reason for the delay is stated in Annexure-2 and also Annexure-3. The details of the delay have been narrated in Annexure-3 with regard to the circumstances, till such time, the W.S. was made ready for being filed. Learned Court below has declined to accept the explanation offered by the petitioners. There is no denial to the fact that the W.S. is required to be filed within the stipulated period. However, under certain circumstances, delay may happen and even in such a situation, liberty is granted by a Court but having regard to causes being shown by the petitioners so made to reveal from Annexures-2 and 3 and nature of the suit, wherein, one of the relief is for partition in respect of Schedule ‘B’ property, the Court is of the view that learned Court below ought to have exercised discretion to condone the default and delay accepting the W.S. In other words, in view of the explanation offered by the petitioners so made to appear from Annexures-2 and 3, the Court finds reasonable cause to accept the W.S. setting aside the ex parte order dated 8^th January, 2024 as a case is made out for the same.

Accordingly, it is ordered.

In the result, the CMP stands allowed. As a necessary corollary, the impugned order dated 13^th January, 2025 passed in C.S. No. 350 of 2023 by learned Senior Civil Judge, Puri is set aside with a direction to accept the W.S. i.e. Annexure-4 filed by the petitioners and thereafter, to proceed to dispose of the suit

Page 3 of 4

according to law. As a consequence whereof, the ex parte order dated 8^th January, 2024 passed therein is also set aside.

In the circumstances, there is no order as to cost.

Urgent certified copy of this order be issued as per rules.

(R.K. Pattanaik)

Judge

Balaram

Signature Not Verified

Digitally Signed Signed by: BALARAM BEHERA Reason: Authentication Location: OHC, CUTTACK Date: 03-May-2025 18:10:41

Page 4 of 4