S. TALAPATRA, SAVITRI RATHO
Anasuya Sahoo – Appellant
Versus
State of Orissa – Respondent
JUDGMENT
1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.
2. Mr. A. Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted one affidavit stating that at no point of time the Opposite Parties No. 5 and 6 were ever executed any protection for arrest.
3. A copy of the said affidavit has not been served on the learned counsel for the Opposite Parties No. 5 and 6.
4. Mr. Mishra, learned counsel is requested to serve a copy of the affidavit to Mr. A. Mohapatra, learned counsel for the Opposite Parties No. 5 and 6 in the course of the day.
5. We find that the matter is ready for disposal on merit. For this purpose, let the matter be listed on 09.01.2022.
6. Meanwhile, the Opposite Parties No. 1 to 3, the Opposite Party No.4 and the Opposite Parties No. 5 and 6 may file their response to the said affidavit filed by the petitioner. It is made clear that, no further accommodation will be made on that day.
7. While filing the additional affidavit, the Opposite Parties No. 1 to 4 shall also take note of our direction as recorded in the order dated 05.08.2022.
8. Mr. J. Katikia, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate appears for the Opposite Parties No. 1 to 4, Mr. A. Mohapatra, learned counsel appear
Emphasis on timely service of affidavit and compliance with court directions.
Failure to comply with court orders regarding filing of affidavits can result in the vacation of relief and refusal of further indulgence.
Dismissal for non-prosecution due to lack of appearance by petitioner's counsel despite previous orders and requests.
The court allowed for the procedural scheduling of a case while providing an opportunity for respondents to file a counter affidavit.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.