Dismissed¶21

Ugrasen@Ugrasen Naik v. Tofan Naik and Ors.

Orissa HC18 Feb 2025LAA/10/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Dismissal of appeal for non-prosecution; appellant absent on repeated calls (12.02.2025 and 18.02.2025); failure to substitute deceased Respondent Nos. 1, 2, 4 and 5 despite legal-heir details supplied; appellant deemed to have lost interest by efflux of time; LAA No.10 of 2012; Ugrasen @ Ugrasen Naik v. Tofan Naik and others; High Court of Orissa at Cuttack; Justice Murahari Sri Raman; order dated 18.02.2025.

What did the court decide?

By efflux of time the Appellant has lost his interest to prosecute the matter, and the Court is therefore not inclined to grant further indulgence. ¶20

Ugrasen@Ugrasen Naik Vs Tofan Naik and Ors. — Orissa HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

LAA No.10 of 2012

¶3

Ugrasen @ Ugrasen Naik

¶4

…. Appellant None

¶5

-versus-

¶6

Tofan Naik and others

¶7

…. Respondents Ms. Prabasi Nayak, Advocate

¶8

CORAM:

¶9

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MURAHARI SRI RAMAN

¶10

Order No. 09.

¶11

ORDER 18.02.2025

¶12

This matter is taken up through Hybrid Mode.

¶13

On the last occasion this Court has passed the following order on 12.02.2025:-

¶14

“This matter is taken up through Hybrid Mode. 2. Ms. Prabasi Nayak, learned counsel appearing for the Respondent No.3 submitted that Respondent Nos.1, 2, 4 and 5 are dead and she has already supplied all the details of legal heirs of the said deceased Respondents to the learned counsel for the Appellants, but no steps has yet been taken for substitution of these Respondents. Therefore, she prays for dismissal of appeal.

¶15

3. None appeared for the Appellants on repeated calls today. However, one opportunity is granted for appearance and apprising with regard to step taken for substitution of aforesaid Respondents.

¶16

4. List this matter on 18.02.2025.”

¶17

This matter is of the year 2012, none appeared for the Appellant on the last occasion and also no one appeared for the Appellant at the time of call today.

¶18

Page 1 of 2

¶19

Ms. Prabasi Nayak, learned counsel appearing for the Respondent No.3 submitted that no steps have yet been taken for substitution of the deceased Respondent Nos.1, 2, 4 and 5 by the Appellant.

¶20

Since this matter is of the year 2012 and none represented the appellant, it seems that by efflux of time the Appellant has lost his interest to prosecute this matter. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to grant further indulgence in this matter.

¶21

Accordingly, the LAA stands dismissed for nonprosecution.

¶22

(M.S. Raman) Judge

¶23

Suchitra

¶24

Signature Not Verified

¶25

Digitally Signed Signed by: SUCHITRA BEHERA Designation: JUNIOR STENOGRAPHERReason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACKDate: 18-Feb-2025 18:17:57

¶26

Page 2 of 2

Ugrasen@Ugrasen Naik v. Tofan Naik and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ugrasen@Ugrasen Naik v. Tofan Naik and Ors.

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

Suresh Chandra Sahoo Vs Subhashree Subhasmita Subudhi

Sek Munsuf Hosen Vs Union of India

Nirupama Sahoo Vs Preeti Ranjan Sahoo

Paradip International Cargo Terminal Pvt.Ltd. Vs M.V. Debi

Dilip Ku.Das Vs Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd.

Ashish Ku.Sahu Vs Kantha Suna