Premchand Chhatai Vs M/S Tata Power Southern Odisha Distribution Ltd., Berhampur — Orissa HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Premchand Chhatai Vs M/S Tata Power Southern Odisha Distribution Ltd., Berhampur — Orissa HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Appeal disposed of with the impugned order treated as such, not attaching much significance to the word 'dismissed'; the Single Judge's observations on the adoption deed clarified as not curtailing the remandee's liberty to hold an independent inquiry; all contentions of the parties kept open.

Issue for consideration

Whether the observations made by the learned Single Judge in the impugned order as to the genuineness of the adoption deed would sway away the remandee (Collector) from forming an independent opinion after holding the entrusted inquiry. +1 more

Court's answer

Whatever observations the learned Single Judge made as to the genuineness of the adoption deed are to be construed not as taking away the liberty of the remandee (Collector) to hold an appropriate inquiry and arrive at an independent finding as to the genuineness of the said deed.

Ratio / Principle

Words used in an order such as 'dismissed', 'allowed', 'rejected' and 'disposed off' are not to be given much significance; what is to be seen is the intent of the judgment or order as emanating from its text and context, for which the Court relies on Kumarappa v. B. Manjunath, AIR 1991 Kant 73.

Key takeaways

Having heard the appellant's counsel and perused the impugned order, the Division Bench declined indulgence (interference) in the matter, confining itself to the clarifications above.ratio¶12

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Intra-Court Writ Appeal (WA No.3102 of 2024, High Court of Orissa at Cuttack, decided 19.01.2026) by Premchand Chhatai challenging the learned Single Judge's order dated 09.10.2024 in WP(C) No.20345 of 2015, wherein the appellant's adoption deed supporting his family-pension claim was doubted and inquiry into its genuineness was entrusted to the Collector of the District concerned. The Division Bench (Dixit Krishna Shripad and Chittaranjan Dash, JJ.) declined interference but made two clarifications: (i) the Single Judge's observations on the genuineness of the adoption deed shall not be construed as taking away the remandee's liberty to hold an appropriate inquiry and arrive at an independent finding; and (ii) relying on Kumarappa v. B. Manjunath, AIR 1991 Kant 73, operative words in an order such as 'dismissed', 'allowed', 'rejected' or 'disposed off' carry little significance, the intent emerging from the text and context being decisive — hence the word 'dismissed' in the impugned order was disregarded. The Appeal was disposed of with all contentions of the parties kept open.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK WA No.3102 of 2024

Premchand Chhatai …. Appellant Represented by Adv.Mr. B.S. Das, Adv. Mr. G. Kar, Adv. -versus- M/s Tata Power Southern …. Respondents Odisha Distribution Ltd., Represented by Adv.- Berhampur, Ganjam and Ors.

CORAM:

JUSTICE DIXIT KRISHNA SHRIPAD JUSTICE CHITTARANJAN DASH

ORDER

19.01.2026

Order No. 08.

This Intra-Court Appeal seeks to lay a challenge to a learned Single Judge’s order dated 09.10.2024 entered in appellant’s WP(C) No.20345 of 2015, whereby the adoption deed presented in support of claim for family pension having been doubted, matter as to the genuineness of the deed is entrusted for the inquiry at the hands of the Collector of the District concerned.

Learned counsel for the Appellant vehemently argues that, although it is open to the learned Single Judge to seek report as to the genuineness of the adoption deed in question, he could not have made much observation which would sway away the remandee in forming an

Page 1 of 2

independent opinion after holding an inquiry. He also notifies to the Court the last line of the impugned order which says that the Writ Petition is dismissed. Thus, according to him there are errors apparent on the face of the record, warranting interference of this Court.

Having heard learned counsel for the Appellant and having perused the impugned order, we decline indulgence in the matter making it clear that whatever observations made by the learned Single Judge as to the genuineness of the adoption deed should be construed not as taking away the liberty of the remandee to hold an appropriate inquiry and arrive at independent finding as to the genuineness of the said deed. Secondly, the sages of law have said that the words in the order like ‘dismissed’, ‘allowed’ ‘rejected’ and ‘disposed off’ would not be given much significance, inasmuch as what is to be seen is the intent of the judgment or order as emanating from the text & context vide Kumarappa v. B. Manjunath , AIR 1991 Kant 73.

With the above observations, the Appeal is disposed off, treating the impugned order as such not attaching much significance to the word ‘dismissed’. All contentions of the parties are otherwise kept open

(Dixit Krishna Shripad) Judge

Signature Not Verified

Digitally Signed Signed by: PRASANT KUMAR SAHOO Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: AuthenticationPrasant Location: Orissa Hgih Court Date: 20-Jan-2026 13:46:17

(Chittaranjan Dash) Judge

Page 2 of 2