Dismissed¶¶14

Gurubari Barik v. Purna Chandra Patra

Orissa HC25 Jun 2025CMP/851/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Orissa High Court, Cuttack; CMP No. 851 of 2024; decided 25.06.2025 by Justice Sashikanta Mishra; dismissal of CMP seeking acceptance of written statement via Order-9 Rule-7 and Order-8 Rule-7 CPC; rejection by trial court upheld; illness plea unsubstantiated; delay in suit; direction to expedite trial.

What did the court decide?

This Court finds no reason to interfere with the Court below's order rejecting the applications for acceptance of the written statement, as interference would amount to putting the clock back and cause unnecessary delay in disposal of the suit. ¶¶13

Gurubari Barik Vs Purna Chandra Patra — Orissa HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CMP No. 851 of 2024

¶2

Gjrubari Barik & Another …. Petitioners Mr. Akshaya Ku. Pati, Advocate

¶3

-Versus –

¶4

Purna Chandra Patra & others …. Opposite Parties Mr. Maheswar Mohanty, Advocate

¶5

CORAM: JUSTICE SASHIKANTA MISHRA

¶6

ORDER_ 25.06.2025

¶7

Order No. 02.

¶8

This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

¶9

The petitioners are Defendant Nos. 4 and 5 respectively in the Court below. They were precluded from filing written statement. Long after, they appeared and filed applications under Order-9 Rule-7 and Order-8 Rule-7 of the Code of Civil Procedure for acceptance of the written statement. The ground taken was that the Defendant No.5 suddenly fell ill due to blood pressure from 01.09.2022 to 31.01.2022.

¶10

The Court below was not inclined to allow the petitions by taking note of the fact that despite receiving summons, Defendant Nos.4 and 5 did not file the written statement. Moreover, they were precluded from doing so, way back on 04.12.2018 and on 01.12.2019. Subsequently, two witnesses being P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and evidence from the side of the Plaintiffs has been closed. The matter is now posted for evidence from the side of the

¶11

Page 1 of 2

¶12

Defendants. The Court below also took note of the fact that though the ground of illness was taken yet the same was not substantiated by adducing acceptable documentary evidence. On such ground, the applications were rejected.

¶13

After hearing learned counsel for the Petitioners as well as the Opposite Parties and on going through the impugned order, particularly, the reasoning adopted by the Court below, this Court finds no reason to interfere with the same as it would amount to putting the clock back and cause unnecessary delay in disposal of the suit. Moreover, the cause shown by the Petitioners-Defendants is not convincing enough.

¶14