The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK (An application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950) W.P.(C) No.10063 of 2024 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)
Legal Reasoning
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 Page 1 of 7 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.
Decision
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 Page 2 of 7 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:- Page 3 of 7 (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) 74; Gopinath Deb Vrs. Budhia Swain and Others that, the power of review is not inherent in a Court or Tribunal. It is creature of the statute. A Court or Tribunal cannot review its own decision unless it is permitted to do so by statute. (iii) In (2019) 9 SCC 416; Naresh Kumar and Others Vrs. Government (NCT of Delhi) that, the power of review can be exercised only when the statute provides for the same. In the absence of any such provision in the statute concerned, such power of review cannot be exercised by the authority concerned. (iv) In 2009 (Supp.I) OLR 534; Balaram Swain and another Vrs. Rabindra Swain and Ors. that, no provision under the Act for review/recall of an order passed in a revision. 5. On the contrary, in order to nullify the aforesaid arguments raised on behalf of the petitioner, learned counsel for the O.P. No.3 relied upon the following decisions:- (i) In (2009) 2 SCC 703; Asit Kumar Kar Vrs. State of West Bengal and Ors. that, it is a basic canon of jurisprudence that, no adverse orders should be passed against a party without hearing him. (ii) In 90 (2000) CLT 412; Brundaban Sahoo Vrs. Antaryami Sahoo and Ors. that, when some orders are passed without giving opportunity of hearing, in that case, every Court or even Tribunal has got Page 4 of 7 inherent power of recalling such orders. Such power of recalling cannot be equated with power of review. (iii) In (2005) 13 SCC 777; Kapra Mazdoor Ekta Union Vrs. Management of Birla Cotton Spinning and Weaving Mills Ltd. and Ors. that, the order passed is liable to be recalled and reviewed not because it is found to be erroneous, but because it was passed in a proceeding, which was itself vitiated by an error of procedure or mistake which went to the root of the matter and invalidated the entire proceeding. (iv) In AIR 1981 SC 606; Grindlays Bank Ltd. Vrs. Central Government Industrial Tribunal that, a procedural review, which is either inherent or implied in a Court or Tribunal to set aside a palpably erroneous order passed under a misapprehension by it, and a review on merits when the error sought to be corrected is one of law and is apparent on the fact of the record. Obviously, when a review is sought due to a procedural defect, the inadvertent error committed by the Tribunal must be corrected ex debito justitiae to prevent the abuse of its process, and such power inheres in every Court or Tribunal. 6. Here in this matter at hand, when O.P. No.2 (Commissioner Consolidation, Odisha, Bhubaneswar) had disposed of the entire R.C. No.155 of 2022 without disposing of the petition under O.1 R.10 of the CPC, 1908 of the third party intervener and when the principles of natural justice was demanding for hearing and disposing of the petition under O.1 R.10 of the CPC, 1908 of the third party intervener first and to dispose of the main case i.e. R.C. No.155 of 2022 thereafter, then at this juncture, it cannot be held that, the impugned order dated 07.02.2024 passed in R.C. Page 5 of 7 No.155 of 2022 was not in accordance with law, because there were procedural mistakes, which had affected to the root of the matter. 7. Now the question arises, whether the O.P. No.2 had power or authority under law for recalling the order dated 03.05.2023 passed in R.C. No.155 of 2022 on the application of the third party intervener in Misc. Case No.13 of 2023, when such order was affected by the procedural mistakes and the same had touched to the root of the matter? On this aspect, the propositions of law has already been clarified by the Apex Court in the ratio of the following decisions:- In a case between Divisional Manager, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vrs. Nirupama Mallick and Others reported in 2003 (II) OLR 189 and in a case between United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vrs. Rajendra Singh & Ors. reported in AIR 2000 (SC) 1165 that, No Court or Tribunal can be regarded as powerless to recall its own order, if it is convinced that, the order was wrangled through fraud or misrepresentation affecting basis of the claim. (Para 3) 8. Here in this matter at hand, when O.P. No.2 had disposed of the entire R.C. No.155 of 2022 without disposing of the petition under O.1 R.10 of the CPC, 1908 for impleadment of the third party intervener without expressing anything about the said petition under O.1 R.10 of the CPC, 1908 of the third party intervener, then at this juncture, in view of the principles of law enunciated by the Apex Court in the ratio of the aforesaid decision, the Commissioner Consolidation, Odisha, Bhubaneswar (O.P. No.2) was not powerless for recalling the order dated Page 6 of 7 03.05.2023 passed in R.C. No.155 of 2022 by allowing Misc. Case No.13 of 2023 of the petitioner on dated 07.02.2024 for hearing of the said petition of the third party intervener. Therefore, the impugned order dated 07.02.2024 passed by the Commissioner Consolidation, Odisha, Bhubaneswar (O.P. No.2) in R.C. No.155 of 2022 cannot be held as erroneous. For which, the question of interfering with the same through this writ petition filed by the petitioner (O.P. in R.C. No.155 of 2022) does not arise. 9. As such, there is no merit in the writ petition filed by the petitioner. The same is to be dismissed. 10. In result, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is dismissed on contest. 11. Hence, this writ petition filed by the petitioner is disposed of finally. Orissa High Court, Cuttack. 23.12.2025//Utkalika Nayak// Junior Stenographer (A.C. Behera), Judge. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: RATI RANJAN NAYAK Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 27-Dec-2025 14:57:56 Page 7 of 7