Sri Sudhakar Pati and others v. Sri Damodar Pati and others) pending in the Court of District Judge, Kh
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK WA No. 1216 of 2022 Sudhakar Pati & Others Punjab National Bank, Zonal Office, Gandamunda, Pokhariput, Bhubaneswar & Others ….. Vs. ….. Appellants Mr. S.S. Padhy, Adv. Respondents Mr. G.D. Kar, Adv. (for Respondent Nos.1, 2 & 3) Mr. B. Routray, Sr. Adv. assisted by Mr. S. Sekhar, Adv. (for Respondent No.4) Mr. S.K. Rout, Adv. on behalf of Mr. D. Mohapatra, Adv. (for Respondent No.5) Mr. P.K. Rath, Sr. Adv. assisted by Mr. A. Behera, Adv. (for Respondent No.6) CORAM: THE CHIEF JUSTICE JUSTICE SAVITRI RATHO
Decision
ORDER 02.09.2023 Order No. 12. 1. 2. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode. Heard Mr. S.S. Padhy, learned counsel appearing for Appellants and also heard Mr. G.D. Kar, learned counsel appearing for the Respondents No. 1, 2 and 3, Mr. B. Routray, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Mr. S. Sekhar, learned counsel appearing for the Respondent No.4, Mr. S.K. Rout, learned counsel appearing for the Respondent No.5, on instruction of Mr. D. Mohapatra, learned counsel and Mr. P.K. Rath, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Mr. Page 1 of 6 A. Behera, learned counsel appearing for the Respondent No.6. 3. By means of this writ appeal, the order dated 07.09.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No. 2372 of 2022 has been challenged. 4. Learned Single Judge has passed the said final order observing that “there will be order in terms of prayer (v) in the writ petition in respect of those accounts except erroneously mentioned account no.0553002100025560. Petitioner is required to obtain and furnish quarterly statement of accounts in respect of the three accounts to be operated pursuant to this order, to added opposite parties. Continuance, termination or otherwise of this order will be subject to final order made in the suit of the interveners being O.S. no.13 of 2016 (Sri Sudhakar Pati and others vs. Sri Damodar Pati and others) pending in the Court of District Judge, Khurda at Bhubaneswar.” It is an admitted position that at one point of time the above referred civil suit was dismissed and later on that was restored to its file for adjudication. The suit is on intra-trust disputes and it is pending since 2016. The trust is running educational institutions and as such the trust has to defray managerial expenses incurred on various heads of accounts. The writ petition has been filed by the trust called Neelachal Mission Trust, Bhubaneswar seeking direction Page 2 of 6 on the Bank-respondents to allow them to operate their bank accounts. But, the Appellants being the plaintiffs in the said suit are aggrieved by the said order. According to them, the trust accounts are being operated by the Respondent No.4 from inception, but, later on, when the said intra-trust disputes broke out and the civil suit was instituted, the Respondent No.1, on assessment of the situation, stopped operation of those bank accounts. The Respondent No. 4 was not allowed thereafter to operate the said bank accounts till the learned Single Judge passed the impugned order dated 07.09.2022. 5. It is relevant to mention that by the order dated 21.09.2022, this Court in I.A. No. 2975 of 2022, arising from W.A. No.1216 of 2022 passed an interim order directing that there shall be stay of the impugned order dated 7th September, 2022 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No. 2372 of 2022. 6. Mr. S.S. Padhy, learned counsel appearing for the Appellants has contended that the Appellants were not given the opportunity to submit the Counter Affidavit. He has referred to paragraph-8 of the impugned order where it has been observed as follows: “The interveners and other trustees are added as party. Petitioner will file consolidated cause title. I.A. no. 5507 of 2022 is allowed and disposed of. Now that all the trustees are parties to the writ petition further directions are being made.” Page 3 of 6 According to Mr. Padhy, learned counsel, the Appellants filed intervention petition. They were impleaded as the Opposite Parties. The writ petitioner was directed to file the consolidated petition incorporating their name. It was expected that the Appellants will be afforded an opportunity to file the Counter Affidavit, as they were arrayed as the Opposite Parties. But by the impugned order, the writ petition was disposed of. 7. Mr. B. Routray, learned Senior Counsel and Mr. P.K. Rath, learned Senior Counsel have strenuously argued before us that the Appellants were given adequate opportunity to represent their case at the time of hearing. Surprisingly, they have come with a plea in the Writ Appeal that they have not been given an opportunity of filing the Counter Affidavit. That apart, the Appellant No.4 has admitted that, from the very day of opening of the account in the name of the Neelachal Mission Trust, the bank account was being operated by the Respondent No.4 and there had been no difficulty or dispute. Moreover, by the impugned order, the learned Single Judge has issued a specific direction to prepare the statements of accounts periodically and furnish the same to all concerned. As such, there cannot be any apprehension of mismanagement of fund, maintained in those bank accounts. 8. Be that as it may, according to our considered view, the Page 4 of 6 Appellants had right to file the counter affidavit and to bring on records their version including the subsequent events which are relevant in their consideration. 9. Mr. Panda, leaned counsel has further contended that there involves a serious question of maintainability of the writ petition inasmuch as, the disputes emerge from an interim order passed in the suit over the same subject matter. 10. After some deliberation, consensus has been formed between the parties that the Appellants will be given 10 days time to file their counter affidavits and thereafter, the Respondent No. 4 will get the opportunity to file the rejoinder within the next seven days after receipt of the copy of the counter affidavit. 11. The interim order passed by this Court on 21.09.2022, as mentioned above, shall continue to operate till the decision is taken by the learned Single Judge. But, we grant liberty to the writ petitioner to file any application regarding the bank operation on emergency. 12. It is expected that the learned Single Judge considering the nature of dispute involved in the writ petition may take an initiative to decide the matter with expedition. 13. Respondents No. 5 and 6 in this appeal are added as the Opposite Parties No. 7 and 8 in the Writ Petition. The consolidated Page 5 of 6 cause title will be filed by the writ petitioner by 14.09.2023. 14. Having observed thus, we affirm the direction of the learned Singe Judge in paragraph-8, but we set aside the direction at paragraph-9 of the impugned order. 15. In terms of the above, this appeal stands disposed of. Urgent certified copy be granted as per rules. (S.Talapatra) Chief Justice Sukanta (Savitri Ratho) Judge Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SUKANTA KUMAR BEHERA Designation: Senior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: Orissa High Court, Cuttack Date: 13-Sep-2023 11:14:56 Page 6 of 6