Back
2024 Supreme(Ori) 500
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
SASHIKANTA MISHRA, J.
Sangita Rani Prusty - Petitioner
Versus
Niranjan Sahoo - Opp. Party
TRP(C) No. 377 of 2017 and TRP(C) No. 378 of 2017
Decided On : 09-10-2024
For the Petitioner:M/s. H.N. Mohapatra, A. Samantaray and A. Nayak, Advocates
For the Opp. Party :M/s. B.K. Ghadei, H.P. Das, D.P.K. Bhuyan D. Panigrahi and B. Maity, Advocates.
Orders passed in violation of a stay are null and void, and parties must be restored to their original positions.
Headnote:(A) Transfer of Proceedings - Jurisdiction of Courts - The court addressed the transfer of cases pending in Family Court, Cuttack to Family Court, Puri, citing interim stay orders and the overruling of previous judgments. The court emphasized that any order passed in violation of a stay is non est. (Paras 6, 7, 9)
(B) Interim Orders - The court reiterated that proceedings resumed despite a stay order are null and void, restoring parties to their original positions. (Paras 8, 9)
(C) Transfer Application - The court considered the financial status of the petitioner, allowing the transfer for convenience. (Paras 11, 13)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner sought transfer of two cases from Family Court, Cuttack to Puri, citing difficulties in attending court due to financial constraints. Interim stay orders were violated by the lower court, leading to the disposal of cases.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the disposal of CP No. 262 of 2016 was non est due to violation of the stay order, restoring the case to its previous status.
Issues: The main issues included the validity of proceedings resumed despite a stay order and the appropriateness of transferring the cases.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that any order passed contrary to an interim order is null and void, emphasizing the need to respect higher court orders.
Result: TRP
(C) No. 377 of 2017 is allowed; TRP
(C) No. 378 of 2017 is dismissed as infructuous.
JUDGMENT :
SASHIKANTA MISHRA, J.
Heard Mr. H.N. Mohapatra, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. B.K. Ghadei, learned counsel for the opposite party.
2. Both these transfer applications have been filed by the same person seeking transfer of two cases pending before different Courts. In TRP(C) No. 377 of 2017, prayer is to transfer CP No. 262 of 2016 pending in the Court of learned Judge, Family Court, Cuttack to the Court of learned Judge, Family Court, Puri. In TRP(C) No. 378 of 2017, prayer is to transfer CP No. 680 of 2014 pending in the Court of learned Judge, Family Court, Cuttack to the Court of learned Judge, Family Court, Puri. In both the cases, by way of interim orders, further proceedings in the aforementioned cases before the learned Judge, Family Court, Cuttack were stayed. In course of hearing of the present applications, however, it was brought to the notice of this Court that despite such order of stay the Court below proceeded with the hearing of the cases and also disposed of the same.
3. To amplify, in TRP(C) No. 377 of 2017, by order dated 18.12.2017, this Court granted interim stay of further proceedings in CP No. 262 of 2016 pending in the Court below. In course of hearing of the present application, it was brought to the notice of the Court that the aforementioned case had already been disposed of. The Court below was therefore, directed to submit a report as to how the matter could be disposed of despite operation of the order of stay granted by this Court. Learned Judge, Family Court, Cuttack informed this Court that in consideration of the judgment dated 28.03.2018 of the Supreme Court in Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency v. Central Bureau of Investigation (Criminal Appeal Nos. 1375-1376 of 2013), further proceedings were resumed on 07.03.2022. Notice was issued to the parties, who appeared on 13.10.2022 for conciliation. The opposite party was precluded on 18.04.2023 for non-filing of the written statement, and thereafter also on 04.12.2023, the petitioner (opposite party in the present case) examined himself ex parte. The judgment was delivered on 04.04.2024.
3.1. Similarly, in TRP(C) No. 378 of 2017, this Court, while issuing notice to the opposite party on 18.12.2017 also granted interim stay of further proceedings in CP No. 680 of 2014 pending in the Court of learned Judge, Family Court, Cuttack. Since it was informed that the proceedings in the Court below had been concluded, on query by this Court, the Court below informed that, in consideration of the judgment in Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency (supra), further proceedings were resumed on 09.05.2022. As six months had already elapsed and none of the parties appeared, the Court issued ‘Court motion notices’ to the parties, but none appeared. The proceeding was therefore, dismissed for default on 08.02.2023 due to non- appearance.
4. On the above facts, Shri Mohapatra would argue that the Court below could not have resumed the proceedings and concluded the cases, since this Court was in seisin over the matter and had also granted interim stay of further proceedings. He further submits that the reference to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency (supra) by the Court below is misconceived, since said judgment has, in the meantime been overruled by a Constitution Bench judgment passed by the Supreme Court in the case of High Court Bar Association, Allahabad v. State of U.P., AIRONLINE 2024 SC 143. Referring to the said judgment, Shri Mohapatra would argue that at least the disposal of the case (CP No. 262 of 2016), being after passing of the judgment in the case of High Court Bar Association, Allahabad (supra), same has to be treated as non est.
5. Per contra, Shri B.K. Ghadei, while not disputing the legal position referred to by Shri Mohapatra, would argue that the Court below took note of the ratio in Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency (supra) at the relevant time, since it was the law of the land
