Chameli Rout Vs Cuttack Bar Association, Cuttack — Orissa HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Chameli Rout Vs Cuttack Bar Association, Cuttack — Orissa HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Review petition disposed of: order dated 30th April, 2025 in W.A. No.740 of 2025 recalled; writ appeal to be listed again on 19th January, 2026; appellant directed to take steps for service of the copy of the writ appeal upon the respondents and to serve a copy on the learned advocate on record of the writ petitioner-respondent the same day.

Issue for consideration

Whether the appellant-review petitioner qualifies as an 'aggrieved person' so as to maintain W.A. No.740 of 2025, the appeal having been dismissed primarily on that ground. +1 more

Court's answer

A person against whom an interim order is passed is regarded as an 'aggrieved person' if it affects any right, civil or constitutional.

Ratio / Principle

Because the second part of Order No.6 dated 28th March, 2025 was an interim order passed by the single Bench, the finding in the impugned order that the appellant is not an 'aggrieved person' nor has suffered any prejudice by the first part of that order is an error apparent on the face of the record.

Key takeaways

Exercising the power of review, the Court recalls its order dated 30th April, 2025 passed in W.A. No.740 of 2025, as it contains an error apparent on the face of the record.ratio¶¶25

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

RVWPET No. 143 of 2025 (High Court of Orissa at Cuttack, 12.01.2026 — Chief Justice Harish Tandon & Justice Murahari Sri Raman): Review against the order dated 30th April, 2025 whereby W.A. No.740 of 2025 was dismissed primarily on the ground that the petitioner could not be considered an 'aggrieved person'. The Court found the impugned order had quoted only the first part of Order No.6 dated 28th March, 2025 (W.P.(C) No.7342 of 2025) and overlooked its second part, by which the single Bench had passed an interim order; a person against whom an interim order is passed is an 'aggrieved person' if it affects any right, civil or constitutional. The earlier finding was therefore an error apparent on the face of the record. Review disposed of by recalling the order dated 30.04.2025; W.A. No.740 of 2025 restored for listing on 19th January, 2026, with directions to the appellant to complete service of the writ appeal on the respondents.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK RVWPET No. 143 of 2025

Chameli Rout

Petitioner

Dr. Sujata Dash, Advocate

-versus-

Cuttack Bar Association, Cuttack and …. Opposite Parties others

Mr. Gopal Kumar Agarwal, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Nityabrata Behuria, Advocate for OP No.1

CORAM:

HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND

HON’BLE MR JUSTICE MURAHARI SRI RAMAN

ORDER

Order No.

12.01.2026

1. The instant review application is filed assailing an order

dated 30^th April, 2025 passed in W.A. No.740 of 2025, whereby and

whereunder, the said appeal was dismissed primarily on the ground that the petitioner cannot be considered as an “aggrieved person”. The entire gamut of the said order hovers around the above aspect, more particularly, when the Court has simply recorded the sequel of events happened in course of the hearing and adjourned the matter to

another date for taking a conscious decision.

Page 1 of 3

2. Paragraph-3 of Order No.6 dated 28^th March, 2025 (passed in W.P.(C) No.7342 of 2025) is reflective of the fact that an undertaking was given by the appellant-review petitioner to appear in person, but could not make herself available at the time when the said matter was taken up by the learned single Judge.

3. Precisely, for such reason, this Court found that once the appellant failed to appear before the single Bench in person and the Court has adjourned the hearing by fixing another date, it does not make the appellant as an “aggrieved person”, providing a right of an appeal before the appellate forum.

4. However, in course of hearing, we noticed that the said Order No.6 dated 28^th March, 2025 is comprised of two parts. The first part is quoted in the impugned order overlooking the other part by which the single Bench passed an interim order. The moment an interim order is passed against a person, he/she is regarded as an “aggrieved person”, if it affects any right, civil or constitutional, then the finding rendered by this Court in the impugned order that the appellant is not an “aggrieved person” nor has suffered any prejudice

Page 2 of 3

by the first part of the order, is an error apparent on the face of the record.

5. We, thus, recall the order dated 30^th April, 2025 passed in W.A. No.740 of 2025 in exercising our power of review, as we find

that the said order contains an error apparent on the face of the record.

6. The review petition is, thus, disposed of.

7. Consequently, let the writ appeal being W.A. No.740 of 2025 be again listed before this Court on 19^th January, 2026.

8. In the meantime, the appellant is directed to take all steps

for effecting service of the copy of the writ appeal upon the respondents. In addition to the same, the copy of the writ appeal may be served upon the learned advocate on record of the writ petitionerrespondent in course of this day.

(Harish Tandon) Chief Justice

(M.S. Raman)

Judge

S. Behera

Signature Not Verified

Page 3 of 3

Digitally Signed Signed by: SUMANTA BEHERA Designation: Senior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 13-Jan-2026 19:38:57