Disposed¶20

Maheswar Tripathy v. Jasoda Tripathy

Orissa HC5 May 2025CMP/60/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Orissa High Court, Cuttack; CMP No. 60 of 2025; Maheswar Tripathy v. Jasoda Tripathy & others; Justice R.K. Pattanaik; order dated 05.05.2025; recall of judgment declined by Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Balangir in CMA No. 29 of 2024; application under Section 151 CPC; suit C.S. No. 61 of 2021 / C.S. No. 61 of 2021-I; decree against stranger; no infirmity found; liberty to challenge decree; appeal to be entertained with condonation of delay plea; disposed of; no costs.

What did the court decide?

CMP disposed of with liberty granted to the petitioner to avail such other remedy available under law and to challenge the decree in C.S. No. 61 of 2021-I; any appeal against the judgment and decree therein to be entertained with the plea of condonation of delay considering the opposite parties' objections; no order as to costs. ¶20

Maheswar Tripathy Vs Jasoda Tripathy — Orissa HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶20

Issue for consideration

Whether the learned court below was correct in declining recall of the judgment (Annexure-2) in C.S. No. 61 of 2021 on the petitioner's application under Section 151 CPC, as reflected in the impugned order in CMA No. 29 of 2024 (Annexure-1). +1 more

¶16

Court's answer

The Court finds no infirmity in the decision of the learned court below (Annexure-1) declining recall of the judgment.

¶16

Ratio / Principle

Considering the petitioner's submission, the petitioner is granted liberty to challenge the decree in C.S. No. 61 of 2021-I as per and in accordance with law.

¶18

Key takeaways

If an appeal is filed against the judgment and decree in C.S. No. 61 of 2021-I, it shall be duly entertained with the plea condoning the delay, taking into account the objection of the opposite parties, and necessary order passed according to law.ratio¶20

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Orissa at Cuttack (Justice R.K. Pattanaik), order dated 05.05.2025 in CMP No. 60 of 2025, Maheswar Tripathy v. Jasoda Tripathy & others. The petitioner challenged the order in CMA No. 29 of 2024 (Annexure-1) of the Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Balangir, whereby his Section 151 CPC application for recall of the judgment (Annexure-2) in C.S. No. 61 of 2021 — a suit in which the opposite parties had obtained a decree against a stranger — was declined as impermissible. The High Court found no infirmity in that decision, but granted the petitioner liberty to challenge the decree in accordance with law, directing that any appeal against the judgment and decree in C.S. No. 61 of 2021-I be duly entertained with the plea of condonation of delay, the opposite parties' objections being taken into account. CMP disposed of; no order as to costs.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

CMP No. 60 o f 2025

¶3

Maheswar Tripathy …. Petitioner

¶4

Mr. P.K.Satapathy, Advocate

¶5

-Versus-

¶6

Jasoda Tripathy & others …. Opposite Parties

¶7

CORAM:

¶8

MR. JUSTICE R.K. PATTANAIK

ORDER

05.05.2025

Order No.

Heard Mr. Satapathy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Nanda, learned counsel for opposite parties.

¶14

Instant petition is filed by the petitioner challenging the impugned order in CMA No. 29 of 2024 as at Annexure-1 of learned Civil Judge, (Sr. Division), Balangir on the grounds.

¶15

The submission of Mr. Satapathy, learned counsel for the petitioner is that the suit was instituted by the opposite parties against a stranger in C.S. No. 61 of 2021 and decree was obtained from the learned court below and seeking recall of the same, CMA was filed but it has not been entertained.

¶16

Recorded the objection of Mr. Nanda, learned counsel for the opposite parties. Though, such an application Section 151 CPC was filed by the petitioner, learned court below declined recall of the judgment i.e. Annexure-2 as not permissible. The Court does not find any infirmity in the decision of the learned court below as per Anexure-1. However, considering the submission of Mr. Satapathy, learned counsel for the petitioner, the Court is of the further view

¶17

Page 1 of 2

¶18

that the petitioner should be granted the liberty to challenge the decree in C.S. No. 61 of 2021-I as per and in accordance with law.

¶19

5. Accordingly, it is ordered.

¶20

In the result, the CMP stands disposed of with the liberty granted in favour of the petitioner to avail such other remedy available under law and in case an appeal is filed against the judgment and decree in C.S. No. 61 of 2021-I, it shall be duly entertained with the plea condoning the delay taking into account the objection of the opposite parties and thereafter, to pass necessary order according to law. In the circumstances, however, there is no order as to costs.

¶21

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

¶22

kabita

¶23

(R.K. Pattanaik) Judge

¶24

Signature Not Verified

¶25

Digitally Signed Signed by: KABITARANI MAJHI Reason: Authentication Location: OHC, Cuttack Date: 07-May-2025 11:52:02

¶26

Page 2 of 2

Maheswar Tripathy v. Jasoda Tripathy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Maheswar Tripathy v. Jasoda Tripathy

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

Annapurna Lal Vs Bishnupriya Behera

Nalinikant Parida Vs Sushanta Parida

Kautuka Pati Vs Deepak Kumar Paul