THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK RVWPET No.160 of 2025 In the matter of an application under Order 47 Rule 1 read with Section 114 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

Registrar General of the (cid:0)+(cid:0)R(cid:0)Q(cid:0)¶(cid:0)E(cid:0)O(cid:0)H(cid:0)(cid:3)(cid:0)+(cid:0)L(cid:0)J(cid:0)K(cid:0)(cid:3)(cid:0)&(cid:0)R(cid:0)X(cid:0)U (cid:0)W(cid:0)(cid:3)(cid:0)R(cid:0)I(cid:0)(cid:3)(cid:0)2(cid:0)U(cid:0)L(cid:0)V(cid:0)V(cid:0)D(cid:0)(cid:15)(cid:0)(cid:3)

Cuttack and others ....... Petitioners -Versus-

Malaya Ranjan Dash and another ....... Opposite Parties For the Petitioners: - Mrs. Pami Rath (Senior Advocate )

Mr. Pratyasish Mo hanty Advocate For the Opp. Party No.1: - Mr. Budhadev Routray (Senior Ad vocate)

Mr. J. Biswal, Advocate For the Opp. Party No.2: - Mr. Aurobinda Mohanty Addl. Standing Counsel CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE S.K. SAHOO AND THE HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE SIBO SANKAR MISHRA --------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------

Date of Hearing: 01.09.2025 Date of Judgment: 17.09.2025 --------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------

S.S. Mishra, J . Although the petitioners in the present Review Petition have assailed the final judgment of this Court dated 02.05.2025 passed in W.P.(C) No.28874 of 2023, however, prayer is being made by the petitioners attempting to explore the following relief:-

(cid:0)‡(cid:0)(cid:11)(cid:0)D(cid:0)(cid:12)(cid:0)(cid:3)(cid:0)D(cid:0)O(cid:0)O(cid:0)R(cid:0)Z(cid:0)(cid:3)(cid:0)W(cid:0)K(cid:0)H(cid:0)(cid:3)(cid:0)5(cid:0)H(cid:0)Y (cid:0)L(cid:0)H(cid:0)Z(cid:0)(cid:3)(cid:0)3(cid:0)H(cid:0)W(cid:0)L(cid:0)W(cid:0)L(cid:0)R(cid:0)Q(cid:0)(cid:30)

(b) Restore the original writ petition and to re- hear the original writ petition taking into consideration the grounds mentioned in the review petition;

(c) And pass any other/further Order(s) as this (cid:0)+(cid:0)R(cid:0)Q(cid:0)¶(cid:0)E(cid:0)O(cid:0)H(cid:0)(cid:3)(cid:0)&(cid:0)R(cid:0)X(cid:0)U(cid:0)W(cid:0)(cid:3)(cid:0)P(cid:0)D(cid:0)\(cid:0)(cid:3)(cid:0)G(cid:0)H(cid:0)H(cid:0)P(cid:0)(cid:3)(cid:0)I(cid:0)L(cid:0)W(cid:0)(cid:3)(cid:0)D(cid:0)Q(cid:0)G(cid:0)(cid:3)(cid:0)S(cid:0)U(cid:0)R(cid:0)S(cid:0)H(cid:0)U(cid:0)(cid:3)

(cid:0)L(cid:0)Q(cid:0)W(cid:0)H(cid:0)U(cid:0)H(cid:0)V(cid:0)W(cid:0)(cid:3)(cid:0)R (cid:0)I(cid:0)(cid:3)(cid:0)M(cid:0)X(cid:0)V(cid:0)W(cid:0)L(cid:0)F(cid:0)H(cid:0)(cid:17)(cid:0)·

2. Heard Mrs. Pami Rath, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioners and Mr. Budhadev Routray, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the opposite party No.1.

3. The main ground on the basis of which the Review Petition has been instituted, is that this Court, while passing the judgment under challenge has relied upon a fabricated set of documents furnished before it, which led to the error apparent on record.

Mrs. Rath, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioners emphatically contended that, in fact, a fabricated and parallel file was created and the said fabricated documents were placed before this Court to persuade this Court to pass the impugned judgment. Had the Court looked into the original record; the result of the writ petition would have been diffe rent.

(cid:0)%(cid:0)\(cid:0)(cid:3)(cid:0)W(cid:0)D(cid:0)N(cid:0)L(cid:0)Q(cid:0)J(cid:0)(cid:3)(cid:0)X(cid:0)Vs(cid:0)o(cid:3)(cid:0) Wca(cid:0)Rlle(cid:0)(cid:3)d(cid:0)W fa(cid:0)bKr(cid:0)iHca(cid:0)(cid:3)t(cid:0)eµd records (cid:0) ¶placed with this Review Petition at Annexure-16 series, Mrs. Rath, has pointed out the following error stated to be apparently crept on record, which is reproduced herein under:

(cid:0)¾ (cid:0)‡(cid:0)7(cid:0)K(cid:0)H(cid:0)(cid:3) (cid:0)2(cid:0)U(cid:0)G(cid:0)aHt(cid:0)eUd(cid:0) (cid:3) 0(cid:0)G4.04.2025 in the present writ petition indicates that the Court had taken note of the original and fabricated records under Sealed Cover. But it has referred to the fabricated records which do not contain the real fact