High CourtsSingle Bench(2024) 04 OHC CK 0282

Sri Bhajahari Rout(dead) And Others vs Sabitri Padhi And Others

Orissa High Court · Decided on 30 April 2024

HON’BLE JUDGES
A.C. Behera, J
RESULT
Disposed Of
CASE NUMBER
R.S.A. No.389 Of 2003

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

19 paragraphs · 400 words

A.C. Behera, J

I.A. NO.323 OF 2024

1.

This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual /Physical Mode).

2.

This Interlocutory Application has been filed in time on behalf of  the  appellants  for  substitution  of  legal  heirs  of  the  Appellant No.1(b). Therefore, there is no impediment  under law to  allow the Interlocutory Application.

3.

Hence, the Interlocutory Application No.323 of 2024 filed on behalf of the appellants is allowed.

4.

The LRs of the deceased Respondent No.1(b) be substituted in his place.

5.

The appellants are directed to file the consolidated cause title of  the  appeal  memo  incorporating  the  names  of  the  LRs  of  the deceased Respondent No.1(b) after serving copy thereof on learned counsel for the respondents.

7.

The Registry is directed to incorporate the names of only five LRs  of  the  deceased  Respondent  No.1(b)  in  the  cause-title  of  the appeal.

8.

Accordingly, the above Interlocutory Application is disposed of finally.

MISC. CASE NO.435 OF 2003

9.

This Miscellaneous Case has been filed on behalf of the appellants under Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act praying for condonation of delay of 20 days in preferring this 2nd appeal vide R.S.A. No.389 of 2003 on the ground that, due to the illness of the appellant, who was looking after the case, the appeal could not be preferred in due time, for which, the delay is required to be condoned. To which, the learned counsel for the respondents did not object.

10.

Therefore, Misc. Case No.435 of 2003 filed under Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act is allowed. The delay of 20 days in preferring this 2nd appeal vide R.S.A. No.389 of 2003 is condoned.

11.

Accordingly, the Misc. Case No.435 of 2003 is disposed of finally.

R.S.A. NO.389 OF 2003

12.

It appears from the noting of the Registry that, there is inadvertent typographical mistake in Order No.13 dated 28.02.2024, because, instead of typing as Appellant No.1(b), it has been mistakenly typed as Respondent No.1(b).

13.

Heard learned counsels from both the sides, the learned counsels of both the sides consented for such correction. Hence, the same is allowed. Corrections are made in the open Court.

14.

The appellants are directed to file the consolidated cause title of the appeal memo after serving copy thereof on the learned counsel for the respondents.

15.

Therefore, list this appeal for hearing on the point of admission on 02.07.2027.

………………………..