Page 1 of 2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

W.P.(C) No. 32071 of 2022

(Through hybrid mode)

Prafulla Chandra Padhi

….

Petitioner

Mr. Gopinath Mishra, Advocate

-versus-

The Commissioner of Endowment,

BBSR and others

….

Opposite Parties

Ms. P. Naidu, Advocate

CORAM:

JUSTICE ARINDAM SINHA

JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MISHRA

Order No.

ORDER

08.12.2022

2.

1.

The disposed of writ petition has been listed under heading ‘To

be Mentioned’ at instance of Miss Naidu, learned advocate appearing

on behalf of the Commissioner. She submits, petitioner had made

intervention application in the proceeding under section 30, Odisha

Hindu Religious Endowments Act, 1951 and by impugned order same

was rejected. She refers to order dated 7^th December, 2022 and

submits, the writ petition was thereby disposed of.

2.

Text of order dated 7^th December, 2022 is reproduced below.

// 2 //

Page 2 of 3

“1. Mr. Mishra, learned advocate appears on behalf of

petitioner and submits, impugned is order dated 23^rd

September, 2022 made by Court of the Commissioner,

whereby his client’s petition dated 16^th April, 2022 was

rejected. He submits, the petition was for intervention in

O.A. no.100 of 2020 (Sri Radhakrushna Mahaprabhu Bije

and Smt. Prasanti Padhi and others), wherein one branch

of Marfatdars had claimed nomination as hereditary

trusties. His client represents another branch.

2. Ms. Naidu, learned advocate appears on behalf of the

Commissioner and submits, section 74 in Odisha Hindu

Religious Endowments Act, 1951 provides only for

certain powers of a civil Court to the Commissioner.

Hence, there should not be interference. 3. We accept

submission made by Ms. Naidu. Petitioner may file

separate cause within two weeks from date. We direct the

Commissioner’s Court that in event, petitioner files

separate Original Application (OA) within the time

directed, it be tagged with OA no.100 of 2020 and dealt

with analogously.

4. The writ petition is disposed of.”

Ms. Naidu submits, the original application to be filed by petitioner,

was directed to be analogously heard with the pending section 30

proceeding because the latter is pending before the Commissioner.

However petitioner is to file for section 41 proceeding before the

Assistant Commissioner.

// 3 //

Page 3 of 3

3.

Mr. Mishra submits, rule 43 in Odisha Hindu Religious

Endowments Rules, 1959 provides for applicability of the Code of

Civil Procedure to proceedings under the Act.

4.

In circumstances recorded above, order dated 7^th December,

2022 is recalled.

5.

By reason of application of the Code of Civil Procedure to

proceedings before the Commissioner, there is no impediment on

application of the procedure under order I rule 10(2) in the Code.

Hence, impugned order is set aside and quashed. Petitioner is added as

party to the section 30 proceeding. Petitioner will produce this order

along with consolidated cause title before the Commissioner, for

continuation of the proceeding with participation of petitioner.

6.

The writ petition is again disposed of.

(Arindam Sinha)

Judge

(S.K. Mishra)

Judge

Sks