Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
KRISHNA S.DIXIT
Bibhu Prasanna Mohapatra – Appellant
Versus
Dharmendra Pradhan – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. dismissal and withdrawal of the writ petition. (Para 1) |
| 2. applications for recall and stay of the order. (Para 2) |
| 3. hearing and considerations about jurisdiction and locus standi. (Para 3) |
| 4. contempt allegations against the petitioner. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 5. refutation of allegations against the judge. (Para 6) |
| 6. court’s analytical observations on the case. (Para 7) |
JUDGMENT :
The subject Writ Petition was disposed off ex parte, vide order dated 09.09.2025, which reads as under:
Leave having been accorded, Petition is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty as sought for.”
“And Your Lordships may kindly add Mr. Ashok Kumar Parija as a party to this Petition for the limited purpose of these proceedings and report this matter before the Full Court in accordance with Rule 11 of the High Court of Orissa (Designation of Senior Advocate) Rules, 2019 for appropriate action;
3. This Court, vide order dated 16.09.2025, had kept that portion of the final order dated 09.09.2025 under suspended animation whereby liberty was granted to the Petitioner to explore remedies elsewhere. Matter was heard for some time on 19.09.2025 and the following order came to be passed:
“Learned counsel for the
The court recognizes the importance of maintaining judicial dignity and outlines procedures to ensure accountability in cases of contempt, recalling its order to allow for proper jurisdictional handl....
The judgment established the importance of upholding the majesty of the judicial system, ensuring judicial discipline, and prioritizing genuine litigants seeking justice, while weeding out speculativ....
Parties must adhere to procedural rules and disclose previous petitions to maintain the integrity of the judicial process.
The main legal point established is that the Advocate General did not have the statutory power to review the earlier order and that the petition for recall was not maintainable.
Contempt of court - LPA against the orders passed in contempt petition is not maintainable as said orders are interlocutory in nature.
A party must disclose all prior related litigation; failure to do so constitutes fraud, rendering subsequent petitions on the same cause of action untenable.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the court's inherent power to review a judgment and order if it is found to be inconsistent and inoperative, based on the precedent set by AIR 1963....
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
