Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points summarized: The appeal challenges the order dismissing the application under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) for setting aside an ex parte decree. The Court upheld the dismissal, finding no sufficient cause for the delay or non-appearance of the appellants (!) (!) . The Court emphasized that the requirements under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC mandate that the cause for non-appearance must be beyond mere negligence and should be beyond the control of the party. The appellants’ conduct, including multiple adjournments and lack of effective steps, demonstrated negligence rather than a valid cause (!) (!) . The appellants claimed they became aware of the decree only during execution proceedings and that their delay in filing the application was justified, but the Court found the explanation vague and unsupported by contemporaneous evidence (!) (!) . The Court clarified that the outcome of criminal proceedings, including acquittal, does not automatically negate civil liability or the validity of a civil decree. The civil claim and criminal case are separate, and an acquittal in criminal court does not automatically set aside or affect a civil decree for damages (!) (!) . The Court noted that the appellants failed to establish any valid or sufficient reasons for their prolonged absence and inaction in the civil proceedings, and their reference to criminal acquittal does not provide a legal basis for setting aside the civil decree (!) (!) . The final decision was to dismiss the appeal, affirming the lower court’s order, and there was no order for costs (!) (!) . In essence, the Court reaffirmed that diligent pursuit of litigation is essential, and mere criminal acquittal does not impact civil liabilities or the validity of civil decrees. The appellants’ failure to demonstrate sufficient cause for their non-appearance led to the dismissal of their appeal.

Arakhita Rana vs Nirmala Rana (dead) by her legal heirs

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(Ori) 410

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
SANJEEB K.PANIGRAHI
Arakhita Rana – Appellant
Versus
Nirmala Rana (dead) by her legal heirs – Respondent

Advocates Appeared:
For Appellants : Mr. P.K. Sahu, Adv.
For Respondents: Mr. S.S. Bhuyan, Adv.

Judgement Key Points

Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points summarized:

The appeal challenges the order dismissing the application under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) for setting aside an ex parte decree. The Court upheld the dismissal, finding no sufficient cause for the delay or non-appearance of the appellants (!) (!) .
The Court emphasized that the requirements under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC mandate that the cause for non-appearance must be beyond mere negligence and should be beyond the control of the party. The appellants’ conduct, including multiple adjournments and lack of effective steps, demonstrated negligence rather than a valid cause (!) (!) .
The appellants claimed they became aware of the decree only during execution proceedings and that their delay in filing the application was justified, but the Court found the explanation vague and unsupported by contemporaneous evidence (!) (!) .
The Court clarified that the outcome of criminal proceedings, including acquittal, does not automatically negate civil liability or the validity of a civil decree. The civil claim and criminal case are separate, and an acquittal in criminal court does not automatically set aside or affect a civil decree for damages (!) (!) .
The Court noted that the appellants failed to establish any valid or sufficient reasons for their prolonged absence and inaction in the civil proceedings, and their reference to criminal acquittal does not provide a legal basis for setting aside the civil decree (!) (!) .
The final decision was to dismiss the appeal, affirming the lower court’s order, and there was no order for costs (!) (!) .

In essence, the Court reaffirmed that diligent pursuit of litigation is essential, and mere criminal acquittal does not impact civil liabilities or the validity of civil decrees. The appellants’ failure to demonstrate sufficient cause for their non-appearance led to the dismissal of their appeal.

Table of Content
1. factual background of the case (Para 2)
2. arguments for appellants regarding suit and criminal proceedings (Para 3 , 4)
3. counsel for respondents supporting lower court decision (Para 5 , 6)
4. court's reasoning on the petition under order ix rule 13 cpc (Para 8 , 9 , 10)
5. court's finding on civil liability and acquittal distinction (Para 11 , 12 , 13)
6. conclusion dismissing the appeal (Para 15 , 16 , 17)

JUDGMENT :

1. In filing this FAO, the Appellants have challenged the order of dismissal dated 17.09.2007 passed by the learned Ad hoc Additional District Judge-cum-FTC-1, Cuttack in CMAPL No.5 of 2007.

2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:

(i) Let a decree for damage of Rs.2,07,000/- be passed against the Defendants (present Appellants).

(b) The cause of action to file the above noted suit arose on 17.05.1998 when the defendants refused to make the damage good by making necessary payments. After filing of the above noted Suit though the Defendants/Appellants entered their appearance through concerned Advocates, they did not file necessary written statement which was a lacuna on the part of the defendants.

(d)The Appellants who were described as accused perso