Allowed¶24

Kautuka Pati v. Deepak Kumar Paul

Orissa HC5 May 2025CMP/291/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Restoration of civil suit dismissed for non-deposit of costs; condonation of default in complying with time-bound deposit condition; liberal grant of further time despite fixed deadline; Order 9 Rule 9 C.P.C.; C.M.A. No.2 of 2018; suit No.73 of 1993; Civil Judge (Senior Division), Keonjhar; declaration of right, title and interest; deposit of Rs.5000/- cost; Orissa High Court, Cuttack; C.M.P. allowed at admission stage without notice to opposite parties.

What did the court decide?

C.M.P. allowed; impugned order dated 15th April, 2019 in C.M.A. No.2 of 2018 set aside; petitioners permitted to deposit the cost of Rs.5000/- on or before 16th May, 2025 to enable restoration of the suit; no order as to costs; urgent certified copy ordered. ¶24

Kautuka Pati Vs Deepak Kumar Paul — Orissa HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶24

Issue for consideration

Whether the default of the petitioners in not depositing the cost of Rs.5000/- imposed as a condition of restoration in C.M.A. No.2 of 2018 within the stipulated fifteen days could be condoned and further time granted, so as to restore the suit dismissed by the impugned order dated 15th April, 2019 for disposal on merit.

¶22

Court's answer

The Court below should have liberally allowed further time to the petitioners to deposit the cost even though it was directed to be complied with within the time fixed; accordingly, this Court condones the default and allows the petitioners to deposit the cost to facilitate restoration of the suit for disposal on merit and according to law.

¶22

Ratio / Principle

The impugned order dated 15th April, 2019 passed in C.M.A. No.2 of 2018 is set aside, thereby allowing the petitioners to deposit the cost of Rs.5000/- imposed by the Court below on or before 16th May, 2025.

¶26

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Orissa at Cuttack, C.M.P. No.291 of 2025 (R.K. Pattanaik, J.), order dated 05.05.2025: Petitioners' suit (No.73 of 1993, Civil Judge (Senior Division), Keonjhar), initially dismissed, had been restored in C.M.A. No.2 of 2018 (Order 9 Rule 9 C.P.C.) by order dated 25.03.2019 subject to deposit of Rs.5000/- cost within fifteen days; on their default the Court below dismissed the suit again by order dated 15.04.2019. Holding that the Court below should have liberally allowed further time despite the fixed deadline, the High Court condoned the default, set aside the impugned order, and permitted the petitioners to deposit the Rs.5000/- cost on or before 16.05.2025 to facilitate restoration and disposal of the suit on merit. C.M.P. allowed; no order as to costs.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

C.M.P. No.291 of 2025

¶3

Kautuka Pati & others

¶4

Petitioners

¶5

Mr. A. Pattanaik, Advocate

¶6

-Versus-

¶7

Deepak Kumar Paul & another

¶8

…. Opposite Parties

¶9

CORAM:

¶10

MR. JUSTICE R.K. PATTANAIK

ORDER

Order

05.05.2025

No.

Heard Mr. Pattanaik, learned counsel for the petitioners.

¶17

No notice are issued to the opposite parties as the matter is disposed of at the stage of admission.

¶18

Instant petition is filed by the petitioners challenging the correctness of the impugned order dated 15^th April, 2019 passed in C.M.A. No.2 of 2018 arising out of C.S. No.73 of 1993 by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Keonjhar, whereby, the suit has been dismissed for failing to deposit the cost with the time stipulated.

¶19

Mr. Pattanaik, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the suit was dismissed on account of default by the petitioners, whereafter, C.M.A. No.2 of 2018 was filed in terms of Order 9 Rule 9 of C.P.C. and it was allowed by order dated 25^th March, 2019 with its

¶20

Page 1 of 3

¶21

restoration but subject to deposit of cost of Rs.5000/- payable to the opposite parties within fifteen days therefrom. The further submission is that the petitioners since failed to deposit the cost imposed within timeline fixed, learned Court below by the impugned order dated 15^th April, 2019 dismissed the suit due to such non-compliance in view of the order in C.M.A. No.2 of 2018. It is further submitted that the suit should be restored in the interest of justice, as the petitioners have filed it seeking declaration of right, title and interest in respect of the suit schedule property.

¶22

Admittedly, the suit was dismissed and later when, C.M.A. No.2 of 2018 corresponding to T.S. No.73 of 1993 was filed and it was allowed, as earlier stated vide Annexure-2 but due to non-compliance of the condition imposed that the cost to be deposited within fifteen days from 25^th March, 2019, restoration was declined. The impugned order is dated 15^th April, 2019 as at Annexure-3 and admittedly, the cost was not deposited within fifteen days from 25^th March, 2019. In the considered view of the Court, the Court below should have liberally allowed further time to the petitioners to deposit the cost, though, it was directed to be complied with within the time fixed. In other words, this Court is inclined to condone the default and allow the petitioners to deposit the cost, to which he is inclined to, in order to facilitate restoration of the suit for disposal of the same on merit and according to law.

¶23

Accordingly, it is ordered.

¶24

In the result, the C.M.P. stands allowed. As a necessary corollary, the impugned order dated 15^th April, 2019 passed in C.M.A.

¶25

Page 2 of 3

¶26

No.2 of 2018 arising out of C.S. No.73 of 1999 by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Keonjhar is hereby set aside thereby allowing the petitioners to deposit the cost of Rs. 5000/-, as has been imposed by the Court below, on or before 16^th May, 2025.

¶27

In the circumstances, however, there is no order for costs.

¶28

Issue urgent certified copy as per rules in course of the day.

(R.K. Pattanaik)

Judge

M.K.Rout

Signature Not Verified

¶33

Digitally Signed Signed by: MANOJ ROUT K Designation: AR-CUM-SENIOR SECRETARY Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT Date: 05-May-2025 18:02:37

¶34

Page 3 of 3

Kautuka Pati v. Deepak Kumar Paul

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kautuka Pati v. Deepak Kumar Paul

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Aruna Nayak @ Arun Kumar Nayak Vs Prasanta Kumar Nayak

Ratikanta Dash Vs Debasish Kumar Sahu

Ratikanta Dash Vs Ashish Kumar Sahu

Maheswar Tripathy Vs Jasoda Tripathy

Annapurna Lal Vs Bishnupriya Behera

Nalinikant Parida Vs Sushanta Parida