IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CMAPL No.629 of 2023
.....
Parameswar Chhura & ors. Petitioners
Represented By Sr.
Adv. -Mr.S.K. Mishra
-versus-
.....
Purna Ansari @ Ganda & ors. Opposite Parties
Represented By Adv. -
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR
MOHAPATRA
ORDER
Order No. 30.04.2024
07. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual
/Physical Mode).
2. Registry is directed to reflect the name of Mr. S.K. Mishra,
learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioners in the cause list as
well as in the brief.
3. Heard learned Senior Counsel for Petitioners.
4. Learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioners contended that the
Opposite Party No.1, namely, Purna Ansari @ Ganda is dead in the
meantime. He further contended that on inquiry the appellant could
ascertain that the said Purna Ansari @ Ganda has not left behind his
legal heirs. Therefore, their exist nobody with a subsisting right to issue
and disuse in the name of the deceased-Opposite Party No.1.
5. Accordingly, a memo has been filed to delete the name of
Opposite Party No.1 who is the Respondent No.1 in the second appeal.
So far, Opposite Party No.2 to 8 are concerned, it is stated by learned
Senior Counsel for the petitioners that they are all Opposite Parties and
they are not contesting the case. As such no notice is required to be sent
to those Opposite Parties. Further, on examination of the CMAPL it
Page 1 of 2.
appears that the same has been filed within period of limitation
therefore, there exists no delay.
6. So far the merits of the matter is concerned, learned Senior
Counsel for the Petitioners submitted that the R.S.A. No.88 of 2006
dismissed vide order dated 27.11.2019 by observing that the learned
counsel for the appellants has no instruction in the matter. Learned
Senior Counsels for the appellants-Petitioners contended that since
there was a communication gap and the appellant could not be any
instruction to his counsel. On such ground, learned counsel for the
Petitioners submitted that unless the CMAPL is allowed and the second
appeal is restored to file the petitioners is likely to suffer a lot of
prejudice.
7. Considering the aforesaid grounds taken on learned Senior
Counsel appearing for the Petitioners, this Court is inclined to allow the
CMAPL. Accordingly, the R.S.A. is restored to file.
8. Registry is directed to list this matter before the appropriate
assigned bench, however, it is made clear that this Court has not made
any observations with regard to substitution of Respondent No.1 which
shall be considered by the appropriate assigned bench in accordance
with law.
9. Accordingly, CMAPL is allowed.
( A.K. Mohapatra )
Judge
Anil
Signature Not Verified
Page 2 of 2.
Digitally Signed
Signed by: ANIL KUMAR SAHOO
Reason: Authentication
Location: High Court of Orissa
Date: 01-May-2024 10:22:05