IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

W.P.(C) No.10063 of 2024

(An application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950) Prahallad Jena …. Petitioner

-versus-

State of Odisha and Others …. Opposite Parties

Appeared in this case by Hybrid Arrangement

(Virtual/Physical Mode):

For Petitioner - Mr. B. Mohanty,

Advocate.

For Opposite Parties - Mr. K. K. Nayak,

Advocate. (for O.P. No.3)

Mr. S. Nayak,

Addl. Standing Counsel.

CORAM:

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A.C.BEHERA

Date of Hearing :19.11.2025 :: Date of Judgment :23.12.2025

A.C. Behera, J. This writ petition under Articles 226 & 227 of the

Constitution of India, 1950 has been filed by the petitioner praying for quashing (setting aside) the impugned order dated 07.02.2024 (Annexure- 1) passed in Misc. Case No.13 of 2023 arising out of R.C. No.155 of 2022 by the Commissioner Consolidation, Odisha, Bhubaneswar (O.P. No.2) on the ground that, the O.P. No.2 had no power and jurisdiction for

passing such impugned order dated 07.02.2024 (Annexure-1) for recalling the order dated 03.05.2023 passed in R.C. No.155 of 2022.

2. The factual backgrounds of this writ petition, which prompted the petitioner for filing of the same is that, the petitioner was the sole O.P. in R.C. No.155 of 2022 filed by the petitioner thereof, who is the O.P. No.3 in this writ petition.

In the said R.C. No.155 of 2022 before the O.P. No.2, a petition under O.1 R.10 of the CPC, 1908 was filed in the said revision by the third party intervener claiming him as an adopted son of the deceased third brother of the petitioner and O.P. of that revision.

On dated 15.02.2023, the arguments in the said revision R.C.

No.155 of 2022 were heard and disposed of that R.C. No.155 of 2022 on

03.05.2023 finally.

Thereafter, the third party intervener filed Misc. Case No.13 of

2023 in that disposed of R.C. No.155 of 2022 before the O.P. No.2 praying for recalling the final order dated 03.05.2023 passed in R.C. No.155 of 2022 on the ground that, without disposing of his petition under O.1 R.10 of the CPC, 1908 for his impleadment as O.P. in that revision, the O.P. No.2 had disposed of the entire revision vide R.C.

No.155 of 2022.

To which, the O.P. in that revision (petitioner in this writ petition)

objected on the ground that, the power of review of an order is not available with O.P. No.2 and relied upon the decisions of this Court passed in OJC No.4475 of 1993 and OJC No.15250 of 1998.

After hearing from learned counsels of both the sides, the O.P.

No.2 recalled the final order dated 03.05.2023 passed in R.C. No.155 of 2022 relying upon the decision cited by the third party intervener assigning the reasons stating that, when the impugned order dated 03.05.2023 has been passed in R.C. No.155 of 2022 without disposing of the petition under O.1 R.10 of the CPC, 1908, then the said O.P. No.2 is not powerless for recalling the final order dated 03.05.2023, because power of recall of an order is equated with power of review and listed that R.C. No.155 of 2022 to 22.05.2024 for fresh hearing of the intervention petition.

To which, the O.P. in R.C. No.155 of 2022 challenged by filing this writ petition praying for quashing the said order dated 07.02.2024 passed in Misc. Case No.13 of 2023 on the ground that, O.P. No.2 had no power for recalling the final order dated 03.05.2023 passed in R.C. No.155 of 2022 through the impugned order dated 07.02.2024 passed in Misc. Case No.13 of 2023.

3. I have already heard from the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the O.P. No.3 and learned ASC for the State.

4. In support of the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner, he relied upon the following decisions:-

(i) In 2024 (I) OLR 725; Jadunath Mallik and others Vrs. The Additional Commissioner, Settlement and Consolidation, Balasore and Others that, in the absence of any express provision, the power of Review cannot be exercised by the quasi judicial authority that too resulting recalling of earlier order.

(ii) In 1982 SCC OnLine (Ori)