Dismissed¶28

Panchanan Debata v. Murari Chandra Mishra

Orissa HC13 Feb 2025WP(C)/901/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Orissa High Court, W.P.(C) No.901 of 2025, order dated 13.02.2025, coram S.K. Sahoo and Savitri Ratho, JJ.; petitioner Panchanan Debata v. Murari Chandra Mishra and another; writ petition dismissed on ground of disputed questions of fact and pendency of RSA No.441 of 2024; underlying suit C.S. No.183 of 2017 (Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Talcher-Angul) decreed Rs.5,25,804/- on 24.09.2021, set aside by Addl. District Judge, Talcher in RFA No.8 of 2021 on 26.10.2024; dispute over whether agreement between parties was acted upon; no statute or precedent cited.

What did the court decide?

The Court declined to entertain the writ petition because disputed questions of fact are involved and the Court is already in seisin of the matter in RSA No.441 of 2024. ¶27

Panchanan Debata Vs Murari Chandra Mishra — Orissa HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

W.P.(C) No.901 of 2025

¶3

Panchanan Debata

¶4

…..

¶5

Petitioner

¶6

Mr. T.K. Mishra, Advocate

¶7

-versus-

¶8

Murari Chandra Mishra and another

¶9

..... Opp. Parties

¶10

Mr. Sarthak Pradhan, Advocate

¶11

for opposite party no. 1 Mr. Sarat Pradhan, Addl. Standing Counsel for opposite party no.2

¶12

CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.K.SAHOO

¶13

THE HON'BLE MISS JUSTICE SAVITRI RATHO

ORDER

Order No.

13.02.2025

This matter is taken up through Hybrid arrangement (video conferencing/physical mode).

¶18

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the opposite parties.

¶19

As per the order dated 15.01.2025, the learned counsel for the petitioner has already served copy of the writ petition on the learned counsel for the opposite party no.1.

¶20

It appears from the date chart filed by the petitioner in this writ petition that there was an

¶21

Page 1 of 3

¶22

agreement executed between the petitioner and the opposite party no1 and the petitioner filed a Civil Suit in the Court of Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Talcher-Angul which was registered as C.S. No.183 of 2017 and the present opposite party no.1 was the defendant no.1 in the aforesaid suit which was filed for recovery of an amount of Rs.5,25,804/- and for other ancillary relief from the opposite party no.1. The learned Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Talcher-Angul vide judgment and order dated 24.09.2021 has been pleased to decree the suit in favour of the petitioner and against the opposite party no.1 and held that the petitioner is entitled to receive Rs.5,25,804/- out of the compensation amount received by the opposite no.1 along with cost of the suit and directed the opposite party no.1 to pay the aforesaid amount with cost of the suit to the petitioner within three months from the date of judgment, failing which the petitioner is at liberty to realize the same from the opposite party no.1 through process of the Court.

¶23

Further it appears that the opposite party no.1 challenged the judgment and decree passed by the learned Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Talcher-Angul in C.S. No.183 of 2017 before the learned Addl. District Judge, Talcher in RFA No.8 of 2021 and vide judgment and order dated 26.10.2024, the Appellate Court has been pleased to set aside the judgment and decree passed by the learned Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Talcher-Angul in

¶24

Page 2 of 3

¶25

the aforesaid suit.

¶26

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that challenging the order of the Appellate Court, the petitioner has preferred RSA No.441 of 2024 before this Court in which the learned counsel for the State has been asked to obtain instruction. Learned counsel for the opposite party no.1 submits that the opposite party no.1 has already entered appearance in the aforesaid RSA. So far as the execution of agreement is concerned, it is disputed as it is the contention of the learned counsel for the opposite party no.1 that the agreement has not been acted upon for which the petitioner is not entitled to get any compensation.

¶27

Be that as it may, since disputed questions of fact are involved and this Court is in seisin over the matter in RSA 441 of 2024, we are not inclined to entertain this writ petition.

¶28

Accordingly, this writ petition stands dismissed.

¶29

Signature Not Verified Pravakar

¶30

Digitally Signed Signed by: PRAVAKAR NAYAK Designation: AR-cum-Senior Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, C UTT ACK Date: 13-Feb-2025 20:21:08

¶31

Page 3 of 3

Panchanan Debata v. Murari Chandra Mishra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Panchanan Debata v. Murari Chandra Mishra

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

Siba Rout Vs Alok Kar,Addl.Secy.,Dept. of W.R, Odisha

Pitambar Majhi Vs Alok Kar,Addl. Secy. ,Dept. of W.R, Odisha

Duluram Majhi Vs Alok Kar,Addl Secy. ,Dept. of W.R, Odisha

Alok Kumar Samantaray Vs State and Ors.

Susanta Barik Vs Chief of the Indian Oil Corporation Ltd, Jagatsinghpur

Bimbadhar Swain Vs State of Odisha