IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK WA No.18 53 of 2025 Dalimba Gamango …. Appellant Represented by Adv.-

Mr. B. Seth, Adv.

-versus-

Block Development Officer- …. Respondents cum-Election Officer of Represented by Adv.- Panchayat Samity, R. Udayagiri, Gajapati &

another Mrs. Suman Pattanayak, AGA Mr. S. Mishra, Adv.

CORAM:

JUSTICE KRISHNA SHRIPAD DIXIT JUSTICE CHITTARANJAN DASH

ORDER

08.04.2026 Order No .

01.

This Intra-Court Appeal seeks to lay a challenge to a learned Single Judge’s order dated 12.11.2025, whereby Appellant’s WP(C) No.25066 of 2024 has been negatived. In the said Petition apparently filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, notwithstanding ornamental invocation of Article 226, challenge was to the order of the District Judge, who had upheld order of the Civil Judge (Jr. Division) by which the Election Petition No.3 of 2022 filed by the Respondent No.2 herein having been favoured, Appellant’s election came to be voided on the ground that he has more than two children as on the cut off date.

2. Learned counsel for the Appellant vehemently argues that his client has only two children and therefore, the finding as to he having four is unsustainable and as a consequence, all the three orders of the Courts below have to be set at naught.

3. Learned AGA Mrs. Pattanayak, on request, appears for Respondent No.1. Learned counsel Mr. Mishra volunteers to appear for Respondent No.2. They resist the Appeal making submission in justification of the impugned orders and the reasons on which all they have been constructed. They tell us that the challenge before the learned Single Judge was under Article 227 of the Constitution and therefore, the Writ Appeal itself is not maintainable in view of Full Bench decision of this Court in Mahammed Saud v. Dr. (Maj) Shaikh Mahfooz, 2008 (II) OLR (FB) 725. They also further say that an Intra-Court Appeal of the kind by its very nature has conventional limitation and therefore, it cannot undertake a deeper examination of findings of the fact.

4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the appeal papers, this Court declines indulgence in the matter broadly agreeing with the reasoning of all the three orders and also the submission made on behalf of the Respondents herein. By and large, the subject matter of this Appeal is similar to the view taken by a Full Bench of this Court in Nabanita Kapat Patra v.

Collector, Kandhamal, 2025(III) ILR-CUT-1221.

The above apart, in view of decision of the Apex Court in Sridhar Miraj Kar v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1967 SC 1, an Intra-Court Appeal of the kind does not lie when order is passed by the learned Single Judge under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Even this view is echoed by a Full bench decision of this Court in Mahammed Saud supra In the above circumstances, the Appeal being unworthy consideration is liable to be and accordingly rejected, costs having been made easy.

Web copy of order to be acted upon by all concerned.

(Krishna Shripad Dixit)

Judge (Chittaranjan Dash)

Judge Prasant Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed

Signed by: PRASANT KUMAR SAHOO

Reason: Authentication

Location: Orissa High Court

Date: 09-Apr-2026 15:14:46