Back
2022 Supreme(Ori) 546
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
B. P. Routray, J.
Keshab Chandra Badu Mohapatra (Since Dead) Represented By Biranci Narayan Batu & Ors. – Appellants
Versus
Managing Trustee of Sri Katyayani Trust, Brundaban & Ors. – Respondents
MA No. 706 of 1996
Decided On : 09-12-2022
D. Nanda, Advocate, S.P. Mishra, Advocate, S. Das, Advocate
The court's decision was based on the principle that when an appeal is already permitted to be pursued by a representative, additional prayers for representation may be deemed unnecessary.
Headnote:
I.A. No.3 of 2022 - Representation of Deity in Appeal - The court rejected the prayer to permit the deity to be represented through Managing Trustee and a representative of Hindu Public, as the appeal was already permitted to be pursued by the representative of Hindu Public.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant's counsel pressed for I.A. No.3 of 2022 to permit the deity to be represented through Managing Trustee and a representative of Hindu Public. However, the court rejected the prayer as the appeal was already permitted to be pursued by the representative of Hindu Public.
Finding of the Court:
The court dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution, considering its year-old pendency and the appellant's counsel's inability to argue the appeal.
Issues: The main issue was the appellant's prayer to permit the deity to be represented in the appeal through specific individuals.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the fact that the appeal was already permitted to be pursued by the representative of Hindu Public, making the prayer to permit the deity's representation through other individuals unnecessary.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution.
JUDGMENT
B. P. Routray, J. - The matter is taken up through hybrid mode.
2. Heard Mr. D. Nanda, learned counsel for the Appellant, Mr. S.P. Mishra, learned Senior Counsel along with Mr. Arjun Narayan, learned counsel for Respondents 1 and 2 and Ms. S. Das, learned counsel for Respondents 4, 5, 7 and 8.
3. Mr. Nanda, learned counsel for the Appellants instead of arguing the matter which was heard in-part on the last occasion, presses I.A. No.3 of 2022 wherein a prayer is made to permit the deity, i.e. Sri Katyayani Thakurani Bije, Bhubaneswar to be represented through Managing Trustee as well as one Suresh Kumar Routray, as the representative of Hindu Public.
4. It needs to be mentioned here that Mr. Nanda argued the matter extensively on last occasion without pressing for I.A. No.3 of 2022 and today he is pressing this I.A on these technicalities. It is important to record here that, the appeal was initially filed by five Appellants and by order dated 4th March 2016, this court has clearly permitted the representative of Hindu Public to pursue the appeal. So the prayer in I.A. No.3 of 2022, which is pressed today, lost its significance and Mr. Nanda, who was earlier permitted to argue the matter on behalf of the surviving Appellant, is not prepared to argue this case further in the guise of such technical plea. As such, the prayer of Mr. Nanda is rejected.
5. Being asked to submit on behalf of Appellant No.5, Mr. Nanda expresses his inability to argue the appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed for non-prosecution, particularly considering its' year-old pendency.
