Back
ORISSA HIGH COURT : CUTTACK
ANANDA CHANDRA BEHERA
Goura Mohan Mohanta – Appellant
Versus
Basa Soren – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. grounds for filing cmapl for readmission (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. preference for substantial justice over technicalities (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. cmapl allowed; 2nd appeal restored (Para 7 , 8 , 9) |
JUDGMENT :
ANANDA CHANDRA BEHERA, J.
1. This Civil Misc. Application under Order41, Rule 19 of the CPC, 1908 has been filed by the petitioners (those were the appellants in the Second Appeal vide S.A. No.85 of 1999) against the Opposite Parties (those were the respondents in the Second Appeal vide S.A. No.85 of 1999) praying for readmission of the S.A. No.85 of 1999 which was dismissed on dated 10.01.2024 for the default of the appellants (petitioners).
2. The factual backgrounds of this CMAPL under Order 41, Rule 19 of the CPC, 1908, which prompted the petitioners for filing of the same is that, the date of hearing of the 2nd Appeal vide S.A. No.85 of 1999 was fixed to 10.01.2024, but due to non- reflection of the name of the newly engaged counsel in the cause list i.e. Mr. N.K. Sahu & Associates, he (learned counsel Mr. N.K. Sahu) was not presented before the Court on dated 10.01.2024, for which, due to non-appearance of the appellants or their learned counsel on dated 10.01.2024, t
Court emphasized that substantial justice prevails over technical grounds, allowing for readmission of an appeal dismissed for the absent appearance of counsel.
Parties should not suffer for counsel's inadvertent mistakes, and uncontroverted affidavit claims must be accepted, reinforcing principles of natural justice.
The court ruled that the non-appearance due to the death of the appellant and counsel did not constitute deliberate fault, warranting restoration of the appeal to ensure justice and uphold civil righ....
The Civil Procedure Code's function is to ensure fair hearings on merits, not to dismiss cases based on technical defaults.
The court emphasized that parties cannot take advantage of the dismissal of an appeal for want of prosecution and allowed the applications filed by the appellants to restore the status quo ante in th....
The court affirmed that once leave under Section 92 of the C.P.C. is granted and confirmed, it cannot be revoked without merit, highlighting procedural preclusion against repetitive challenges.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
