Dismissed¶7

Paka Sahoo v. Sombari Sahoo

Orissa HC5 Aug 2025WA/976/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ appeal dismissed as not maintainable: appellants not 'aggrieved persons'; substitution of heirs/legal representatives impermissible in a disposed of writ petition (W.P.(C) No.15371 of 2006); impleadment before Sub-Collector, Bhadrak in Miscellaneous Case No.4 of 2023; intra-Court appeal maintainability; natural justice; Orissa High Court; WA No.976 of 2025; order dated 8th April, 2025; earlier order dated 8th September, 2022.

What did the court decide?

No relief to the appellants; the writ appeal is dismissed. Consequential directions: liberty to the appellants to approach the Sub-Collector, Bhadrak seeking impleadment if the record is not corrected, and the said authority to decide the matter on merits uninfluenced by the observations in the orders dated 8th September, 2022 and 8th April, 2025, after observing natural justice.

Paka Sahoo Vs Sombari Sahoo — Orissa HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶7

Issue for consideration

Whether the appellants are 'aggrieved persons', which is the sine qua non for maintaining an intra-Court appeal against the impugned order. +1 more

¶3

Court's answer

The appellants do not satisfy the concept of 'aggrieved person': the impugned order does not affect their rights but is a revival of their lost right by directing impleadment in the pending proceeding, and therefore the intra-Court appeal is not maintainable at their behest.

¶5

Ratio / Principle

Heirs or legal representatives can be substituted only where the proceeding is pending and final adjudication has not been made; once the proceeding culminates in a final order and no longer remains alive, recourse must be taken as permissible in law and not by substitution in a disposed of matter.

¶4

Key takeaways

In the event the record is not corrected by impleading the appellants, liberty is granted to the appellants to approach the Sub-Collector, Bhadrak and seek their impleadment.ratio¶6
The Sub-Collector, Bhadrak shall decide the matter independent of any observations made in the order dated 8th September, 2022 or the order dated 8th April, 2025, so far as the merits of the respective claims are concerned, after observing the principle of natural justice.ratio¶6

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Orissa, Cuttack (Division Bench of the Chief Justice, Harish Tandon, and Murahari Sri Raman, J.) dismissed W.A. No.976 of 2025 (Paka Sahoo & ors. v. Sombari Sahoo & ors.) challenging the order dated 8th April, 2025 of the learned Single Judge in the disposed of W.P.(C) No.15371 of 2006, by which the Sub-Collector, Bhadrak was directed to implead the applicants (heirs of opposite party nos.4 & 5) in the pending proceeding and dispose of the case after hearing all parties. Held: (i) heirs/legal representatives can be substituted only in a pending proceeding prior to final adjudication; once a proceeding culminates in a final order, recourse must be as permissible in law and not by substitution in a disposed of matter; (ii) the impugned order, having revived the appellants' lost right by directing impleadment (communicated by the Registry on 10th April, 2025 in Miscellaneous Case No.4 of 2023), did not affect their rights, so they failed the 'aggrieved person' test essential to maintain an intra-Court appeal. Liberty was granted to seek impleadment before the Sub-Collector, who must decide the merits independently of the observations in the orders dated 8th September, 2022 and 8th April, 2025, observing natural justice.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK WA No.976 of 2025

¶2

Paka Sahoo and others

¶3

…. Appellants

¶4

Mr. Maheswar Mohanty, Advocate

¶5

-versus-

¶6

Sombari Sahoo and others

¶7

…. Respondents

¶8

CORAM:

¶9

THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND

¶10

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MURAHARI SRI RAMAN

Order No.

ORDER 05.08.2025

This matter is taken up through Hybrid mode.

¶15

This is an appeal at the behest of the appellants assailing the order dated 8^th April, 2025 passed in a disposed of writ petition being W.P.(C) No.15371 of 2006.

¶16

After perusal of the impugned order, we are amazed whether the appellants can be said to be aggrieved persons, which is sine-qua-non to maintain an intra-Court appeal. The said order originated from the applications taken out by the appellants bringing to the notice of the Court that opposite party nos.4 & 5 were dead at the time when the final order was passed and, therefore, they should be substituted in a disposed of writ petition.

¶17

The heirs or the legal representatives can be substituted in place of the deceased party to the proceeding, provided the said proceeding is pending and final adjudication has not been made. The moment, the proceeding has culminated into a final order and no longer remained alive, the recourse is to be taken as permissible in law and not the substitution in a disposed of matter.

¶18

Be that as it may, we find that the learned Single Judge taking note of the fact that the heirs of opposite party nos.4 & 5 have approached, in fact passed an order in favour of the said

¶19

Page 1 of 2

¶20

applicants by directing the Sub-Collector, Bhadrak to implead them as parties in the pending proceeding and thereafter to dispose of the case after affording an opportunity of hearing to all the parties. Such order does not affect the right of the appellants, rather it is a revival of the lost right by directing the Sub-Collector, Bhadrak to implead the appellants as parties in the pending proceeding and, therefore, the appellants do not satisfy the concept of “aggrieved person” to maintain an appeal.

¶21

We further noticed from the impugned order that the Registry was directed to communicate the aforesaid order to the Sub-Collector, Bhadrak, so that the appellants may be impleaded as parties in Miscellaneous Case No.4 of 2023. The record, placed before us, revealed that the said order dated 8^th April, 2025 was communicated by the Registry on 10^th April, 2025 and, therefore, it is inconceivable that the Sub-Collector, Bhadrak has not effected the impleadment as directed by this Court in the said order. However, in the event, the record is not corrected by impleading the appellants, liberty is granted to the appellants to approach the SubCollector, Bhadrak and seek their impleadment. The said authority shall proceed to decide the matter independent of any observations made in the order dated 8^th September, 2022 or the order dated 8^th April, 2025 so far as the merit of the respective claims are concerned, after observing the principle of natural justice.

¶22

With the aforesaid order, the writ appeal is dismissed.

¶23

Signature Not Verified

¶24

Digitally Signed Signed by: LAXMIKANT MOHAPATRA Designation: Senior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 06-Aug-2025 18:04:33

¶25

(Harish Tandon) Chief Justice

¶26

(M.S. Raman) Judge

¶27

MRS/Laxmikant

¶28

Page 2 of 2

Paka Sahoo v. Sombari Sahoo

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Paka Sahoo v. Sombari Sahoo

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bhaja Gobinda Routray Vs State of Odisha

Suvendu Kumar Sahu Vs State of Odisha

Babula Mohanty Vs State of Odisha

Subhransu Sekhar Debnath Vs State Level Scrutiny Committee, Cuttack

Sukantilata Das Vs State of Odisha

Biswa Ranjan Mohanty Vs Union of India