The High Court · 2025
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CMP No. 447 of 2022 (An Application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India) Susama Nayak ...… Petitioner -Versus- M/s. Truck Owners Association & Others .... Opposite Parties _____________________________________________ For Petitioner : Mr. K.Harichandan, Advocate For Opp. Parties : Mr. S.K.Mishra, Advocate ______________________________________________________ CORAM: JUSTICE SASHIKANTA MISHRA JUDGMENT 19th August 2025 SASHIKANTA MISHRA, J. The petitioner is the plaintiff in C.S. No. 162 of 2014 pending in the Court of learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kujanga. Said suit has been filed for declaration and permanent injunction. The suit schedule properties have been described under Schedule A and B Page 1 of 10
Legal Reasoning
to the plaint. Pursuant to notice, the defendants had appeared but only defendant No.3 filed written statement. By order dated 26.04.2017, the Court below precluded defendant No.8 (and defendant No.9) to file written statement in the suit but permitted them to contest. The case thereafter progressed to trial stage and presently is at the stage of hearing arguments. At this stage, defendant No.8 filed an application with prayer to recall the order dated 26.04.2017 and to accept the written statement filed by it. Objection was filed by the plaintiff challenging the application on the ground of its belated filing. The Court below, by order dated 04.04.2022 allowed the petition by accepting the written statement. Said order is impugned in the present application filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
Legal Reasoning
2. Heard Mr. K.Harichandan, learned counsel for the plaintiff-petitioner and Mr. T.K.Mishra, learned counsel appearing for defendant No.8- Opposite Party. 3. Mr. Harichandan would submit that the Court below committed gross error by allowing the petition for Page 2 of 10 acceptance of the written statement at such belated stage. The defendant No. 8 having been precluded from filing the written statement as far back as on 26.04.2017 had never challenged the said order. Moreover, defendant No.8 is guilty of negligence and for not showing due diligence in prosecuting the case. The case is at the stage of hearing arguments. If the written statement is accepted, it would amount to a de novo trial. Mr. Harichandan further submits that the grounds raised by defendant No.8 in its petition are not worthy of belief as it being a registered society having large number of employees, it cannot be believed that the case was being looked after by one person, who having died there was no further information regarding the case. In support of his contention as above, Mr. Harichandan has relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Desh Raj vrs. Balkishan (D) Through Proposed LR Ms. Rohini (arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 6217 of 2019). Page 3 of 10 4. Per contra, Mr. Mishra would submit that while it is a fact that the application for acceptance of written statement was filed belatedly, the delay was due to genuine and bonafide reason inasmuch as the person looking after the case on behalf of defendant No.8 died because of sudden illness. Further, there was communication gap between defendant No.8 and the conducting counsel, as a result of which, the status of the case was not within the knowledge of the defendant No.8, which is a juristic person being a registered society. Mr. Mishra, further argues that even otherwise, a part of the Schedule A land having been purchased by defendant No.8, over which the plaintiff claims title, it would be seriously prejudiced if opportunity is not granted to offer its defence in the case. Mr. Mishra has also cited a judgment of this Court in the case of Kailash vrs. Nanhku & Ors1 and Desh Raj Vrs. Balkishan (D) through Proposed LR Ms. Rohini2.