IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CMAPL No.238 of 2025 Sri Sri Gopal Jew Thakur And ..... Petitioner Sri Sri Bhagabat Grathiswar Sebayat Marfatdar Prafulla Kumar Pathak Represented by Adv. -

Sandeep Rath -versus-

Prafulla Kumar Panda & ..... Opposite Parties Others Represented by Adv. -

M/s Sakhi Rout, Adv CORAM:

MR. JUSTICE ANANDA CHANDRA BEHERA

ORDER

19.12.2025 I.A. No.377 of 2025 Order No.

06. 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

2. The direction given in the previous order regarding the deposit of cost has already been complied by filing acknowledgement receipt, for which, the above I.A. is disposed of finally.

(ANANDA CHANDRA BEHERA)

Judge CMAPL No.238 of 2025

07. 1. This CMAPL has been filed by the Petitioner under Order 41, Rule 19 of the CPC, 1908 for readmission of the 2^nd Appeal vide S.A. No.156 of 2000, which was dismissed for the default of the petitioner (who was the appellant in the 2^nd appeal vide S.A. No.156 of 2000) on dated 07.10.2024.

3. The learned counsel for the Opposite Parties/respondents (those were the respondents in the 2^nd Appeal vide S.A. No.156 of 2000) is present and she has no objection for readmission of the 2^nd Appeal. Both the parties are interested for readmission of the 2^nd Appeal vide S.A. No.156 of 2000 for participating in the hearing of the 2^nd Appeal on merit.

4. It is the settled propositions of law, as per the dictum of the Apex Court in the ratio of the decision between Sumtibai & Others Vs. Paras Finance Co. Mankanwar W/o. Parasmal Chordia (D) & Others in Appeal (Civil) No.117 of 2001 (Para 8) that, “The Civil Procedure Code is really the rules of natural justice, which are set out in great and elaborate detail. Its purpose is to enable both parties to get a change of hearing.”

5. The law has also further been settled in the catena of decisions that, when courses of substantial justice and the law of technicalities are pitted against each other, the courses of substantial justice deserves to be preferred in order to enable both the parties to get the hearing of the appeal on merit without dismissing the same on any technical ground, for no other reason, but only in order to avoid the multiplicity of litigations between the parties.

6. When both the parties of the CMAPL are eagerly interested for hearing of the 2^nd Appeal vide S.A. No.156 of 2000 on merit after setting aside its dismissal order (which was passed for the default of the appellant), then at this juncture, in view of the above principles, there is no justification under law to disallow the CMAPL No.238 of 2025.

7. Therefore, the CMAPL No.238 of 2025 filed on behalf of the petitioner is allowed.

8. The dismissal order passed on dated 07.10.2024 in S.A.

No.156 of 2000 is set aside.

9. The 2^nd Appeal vide S.A. No.156 of 2000 be re-admitted (relegated) to its original state as it was prior to its dismissal on

07.10.2024.

10. Accordingly, the CMAPL No.238 of 2025 is disposed of finally.

(ANANDA CHANDRA BEHERA)

Judge S.A. No.156 of 2000

08. In view of the final order passed today in CMAPL No.238 of

2025, Registry is directed to list this matter on 26.02.2026.

(ANANDA CHANDRA BEHERA)

Judge Rati Ranjan Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: RATI RANJAN NAYAK Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 23-Dec-2025 10:43:18