Disposed¶21

Arpan Kumar Patra v. Bidya Bharati Sahoo

Orissa HC25 Nov 2025WP(C)/32803/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Framing/settlement of issues without hearing parties or counsel; Order 10 Rule 2 CPC; oral examination of parties at first hearing; C.P. No.90 of 2025; re-casting of issues; adjournment; Hazira counter-signed; order sheet wrongly recording absence; husband v wife proceeding; Arpan Kumar Patra v Bidya Bharati Sahoo; Orissa High Court Cuttack; W.P.(C) No.32803 of 2025; Justice Sanjay Kumar Mishra.

What did the court decide?

Permission to the Petitioner to move an application for a short adjournment in C.P. No.90 of 2025 (supported with an affidavit communicating this Court's order), upon which the Court below shall adjourn the proceeding to any date in the week commencing 8th December, 2025 and, on the adjourned date, if such application is moved, recast the issues framed on 13.10.2025, if so required, after hearing the parties or their Counsels.

Arpan Kumar Patra Vs Bidya Bharati Sahoo — Orissa HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶21

Issue for consideration

Whether the Petitioner's grievance — that issues in C.P. No.90 of 2025 were settled/framed on 13.10.2025 without hearing the Petitioner or his Counsel although both were present (with the Hazira counter-signed), and that the order sheet wrongly recorded the Petitioner as absent contrary to Order 10 Rule 2 CPC — warranted relief enabling re-casting of those issues.

¶16

Court's answer

This Court confined the writ petition's challenge to the order dated 13.10.2025 passed in C.P. No.90 of 2025, since the order dated 08.09.2025 had neither been annexed to the writ petition nor incorporated by amendment after its subsequent filing as a memo on 20.11.2025.

¶15

Ratio / Principle

Taking into consideration the averments in Paras 4 to 9 of the writ petition and the submissions of learned Senior Counsel, the writ petition stands disposed of, permitting the Petitioner to move an application for a short adjournment in C.P. No.90 of 2025 enabling him to file an appropriate application for re-casting the issues framed on 13.10.2025.

¶21

Key takeaways

If such an application for adjournment is moved, the learned Court below shall adjourn the proceeding in C.P. No.90 of 2025 to any date in the week commencing from 8th December, 2025, enabling the Petitioner to move the appropriate application for re-casting the issues.ratio¶24
On the adjourned date, if such an application is moved, the learned Court below shall do well to recast the issues framed on 13.10.2025, if so required, after hearing the parties or their Counsels.ratio¶25

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Orissa High Court, Cuttack — W.P.(C) No.32803 of 2025, order dated 25.11.2025 (Sanjay Kumar Mishra, J.). A husband sought to challenge orders dated 08.09.2025 and 13.10.2025 in C.P. No.90 of 2025; the prayer was confined to the 13.10.2025 order because the 08.09.2025 order was annexed late by memo (filed 20.11.2025) and the writ petition was never amended. Grievance: the Court below framed/settled issues on 13.10.2025 without hearing the Petitioner or his Counsel although both were present (the Advocate counter-signed the Petitioner's Hazira) and the written statement was filed the same day; the order sheet also wrongly recorded the Petitioner as absent; reliance was placed on Order 10 Rule 2 of CPC (oral examination of parties present at framing of issues). Taken up at the admission stage without notice to the Opposite Party-Wife, the writ petition stood disposed of: the Petitioner was permitted to move an affidavit-supported adjournment application; if moved, the Court below is to adjourn the proceeding to a date in the week commencing 8.12.2025 and recast the 13.10.2025 issues, if so required, after hearing the parties or their Counsels.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

W.P.(C) No.32803 of 2025

¶3

Arpan Kumar Patra

¶4

…. Petitioner

¶5

Mr. Y. Dash, Sr. Advocate Being assisted by Mr. N.C. Mohanty, Advocate

¶6

-versus-

¶7

Bidya Bharati Sahoo

¶8

…. Opposite Party

¶9

CORAM: JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MISHRA

ORDER

25.11.2025

Order No.

01.

This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

¶15

2. As is revealed from the prayers made in the writ petition, the Petitioner-husband intends to challenge the orders dated 08.09.2025 and 13.10.2025 passed in C.P. No.90 of 2025. However, one of the impugned orders, i.e., Order dated 08.09.2025, has not been annexed to the writ petition. Rather, it has been filed subsequently in shape of a memo on 20.11.2025. Thereafter also no step has been taken to amend the writ petition. Hence, the prayer made in the writ petition is confined to the order dated 13.10.2025 passed in C.P. No.90 of 2025.

¶16

3. In view of the limited grievance of the Petitioner regarding settlement of issues in C.P. No.90 of 2025, to avoid further delay, the writ petition is taken up for hearing and disposal at the stage of admission without noticing to the Opposite Party-Wife.

¶17

4. Heard Mr. Y. Dash, learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner, being assisted by Mr. N.C. Mohanty, learned Counsel for the Petitioner.

¶18

5. Learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner, drawing attention of this Court to averments made in para-4 to 9 of the writ petition submits, though the Petitioner was very much present on 13.10.2025 along with his Advocate, who counter signed the Hazira submitted by the Petitioner before the Court below, without hearing the Petitioner so also his Counsel, the Court below has framed issues on the very same day, i.e., on 13.10.2025, on which date the Petitioner filed the written statement. That apart, it was incorrectly recorded in the order sheet that the petitioner was absent on the said date.

¶19

6. Mr. Dash, learned Senior Counsel further submits, in view of the provision enshrined under Order 10 Rule 2 of CPC, at the first hearing of the suit, the Court shall, with a view to elucidating matters in controversy in the suit, examine orally such of the parties to the suit appearing in person or present in court, as it deems fit at the time of framing of issues. However, issues have been framed without hearing the parties so also the Counsels, who were very much present on 13.10.2025 before the Court below.

¶20

7. Learned Senior Counsel submits, C.P. No.90 of 2025 stands posted to today for hearing.

¶21

8. Taking into consideration the averments made in Paras 4 to 9 of the writ petition so also submissions made by the learned Senior Counsel, the writ petition stands disposed of permitting the Petitioner to move an application for a short adjournment in C.P. No.90 of 2025 enabling the Petitioner to file appropriate application for re-casting the

¶22

Page 2 of 3

¶23

issues framed on 13.10.2025.

¶24

9. It is made clear that, if such an application for adjournment is moved, the learned Court below shall adjourn the proceeding in C.P. No.90 of 2025 to any date in the week commencing from 8th December, 2025 enabling the Petitioner to move appropriate application for re-casting the issues.

¶25

10. On the adjourned date, if such an application is moved, the learned Court below shall do well to recast the issues framed on 13.10.2025, if so required, after hearing the parties or their Counsels.

¶26

11. Since C.P. No.90 of 2025 stands posted to today, liberty is granted to the Petitioner to move an application for adjournment supported with an affidavit to bring to the notice of the Court below regarding this order passed by this Court.

¶27

12. Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application as per rules.

(S.K. MISHRA)

Banita

JUDGE

Signature Not Verified

¶32

Digitally Signed Signed by: BANITA PRIYADARSHINI PALEI Designation: SR. STENOGRAPHER Reason: AUTHENTICATION Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, C UTT ACK Date: 26-Nov-2025 15:57:10

¶33

Page 3 of 3

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Order dated 13.10.2025 passed in C.P. No.90 of 2025, by which issues were settled/framed on the same day without hearing the Petitioner or his Counsel although both were present, and the order sheet incorrectly recorded the Petitioner as absent; the Petitioner's originally intended challenge to the order dated 08.09.2025 in the same C.P. fell away because that order was annexed late by memo (20.11.2025) and the writ petition was never amended.¶15
the Court below (conducting C.P. No.90 of 2025) · 13.10.2025
Prior proceeding
Per prayers in the writ petition, the Petitioner-husband intended to challenge both the orders dated 08.09.2025 and 13.10.2025 passed in C.P. No.90 of 2025.¶15
Prior proceeding
The order dated 08.09.2025 was not annexed to the writ petition; it was filed subsequently as a memo on 20.11.2025, and no amendment of the writ petition followed, so the prayer was confined to the 13.10.2025 order.¶15
Prior proceeding
Given the limited grievance regarding settlement of issues, the writ petition was taken up for hearing and disposal at the admission stage without notice to the Opposite Party-Wife.¶16
Prior proceeding
On 13.10.2025 the Petitioner was present before the Court below along with his Advocate, who counter-signed the Hazira submitted by the Petitioner.¶18
Prior proceeding
Without hearing the Petitioner or his Counsel, the Court below framed issues on the very same day (13.10.2025), on which date the Petitioner filed his written statement.¶18
Prior proceeding
The order sheet of the Court below incorrectly recorded that the Petitioner was absent on 13.10.2025.¶18
Prior proceeding
Learned Senior Counsel relied on Order 10 Rule 2 of CPC, submitting that at the first hearing the Court shall orally examine parties present so as to elucidate matters in controversy at the time of framing of issues.¶19
Prior proceeding
C.P. No.90 of 2025 stood posted for hearing on the date of this order.¶20

Arpan Kumar Patra v. Bidya Bharati Sahoo

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arpan Kumar Patra v. Bidya Bharati Sahoo

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

Banita Barik Vs T. Deepak Rao

Dipishree Deepika Sahoo Vs Ashok Kumar Sahoo

Centurion University of Technology and Management Vs State of Odisha

Nibedita Nayak Vs Kishan Kumar Khadiratna

Rasmita Kumari Raulo Vs Jitendra Muni

Ganesh Nayak Vs Sasmita Nayak