The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.27476 of 2025 Purnima Singh …. Petitioner Mr. S.K. Pradhan (3), Adv. State of Odisha & Others -versus- …. Opp. Parties Mr. A.K. Pati, ASC Mr. D.R. Mohapatra, Advocate for O.P. No.3 CORAM: JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY ORDER 25.09.2025
Decision
Order No. 01. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical) Mode. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that in Dispute Case No.17 of 2023, petitioner though entered her appearance but could not file the Written Statement of defence because of some practical difficulties. However, the same was filed on 21.06.2025 as found from Annexure-3. 3.1. It is contended that even though the Written Statement was filed by the present petitioner/Defendant No.1 in Dispute Case No.17 of 2023 on 21.06.2025 under // 2 // Annexure-3, but without accepting the same, the matter was heard and disposed of on the very same date with passing of the impugned order on dated 21.06.2025 under Annexure-5. While not accepting the WS, it was wrongly indicated that no WS has been filed by Defendant No.1 and Defendant No.1 has been set ex-parte. 3.2. Even though petitioner filed a petition on 09.07.2025 in Misc. Case No.12 of 2025 under Annexure-2 to set aside the Ex-parte order passed on 21.06.2025 under Annexure-5, but that was rejected vide the impugned order dated 04.09.2025 under Annexure-6. 3.3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that since on the date fixed for hearing of the matter to 21.06.2025, petitioner filed her written statement of defence so enclosed as Annexure-3, the same should have been accepted and the dispute should have been heard and disposed of in accordance with law on merit by giving due opportunity of hearing to all concerned. But as found O.P. No.1 instead of accepting the Written Statement so filed by the petitioner on 21.06.2025, disposed of the proceeding vide order dated 21.06.2025 under Annexure- 5. Petitioner when filed an application to recall the ex- parte order on 09.07.2025 under Annexure-2, so registered as Misc. Case No.12 of 2025, the same was also rejected vide the impugned order dated 04.09.2025 under Annexure-6. Page 2 of 6 // 3 // 3.4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the Dispute Case was fixed to 21.06.2025 for hearing and on the said date petitioner filed her Written Statement of defence. But O.P. No.1 held that no WS has been filed by the petitioner. Petitioner on the prayer of O.P. No.3 was also treated as ex-parte and matter was disposed of on 21.06.2025 itself. 3.5. It is contended that since on the date of hearing so fixed to 21.06.2025, petitioner through her counsel submitted the WS, the same should have been accepted. But instead of accepting the Written Statement so filed, the matter was heard and the dispute was disposed of vide order dated 21.06.2025 under Annexure-5. Misc. Case filed to recall the said order was also rejected vide order dated 04.09.2025 under Annexure-6. 3.6. It is accordingly contended that in view of such conduct of Opp. Party No.1, the impugned order passed on 21.06.2025 and further order passed on 04.09.2025 under Annexure-5 and 6 requires interference of this Court. 4. Mr. D.R. Mohapatra, learned counsel appearing for O.P. No.3 on the other hand while supporting the impugned order, contended that since on the face of her appearance, petitioner never filed the Written Statement and on the previous date her counsel had made a submission that petitioner has no instruction, the matter Page 3 of 6 // 4 // was heard and disposed of on 21.06.2025. Even though an application was filed by the petitioner to set aside the ex-parte order on 09.07.2025 under Annexure-2, but the same has been rejected with assigning of sufficient reasons vide order dated 04.09.2025 under Annexure-6. 4.1. It is contended that since on the face of her appearance, Written Statement was never filed and submission was made on the previous date that the engaged counsel for the petitioner has no instruction. However, the W.S. was filed on 21.06.2025 in order to delay the matter. It is accordingly contended that no illegality or irregularity can be found with the action of the Opp. Party No.1 in disposing the proceeding vide order dated 21.06.2025 under Annexure-5 and thereafter rejecting the application filed to set aside the Ex-parte order vide order dated 04.09.2025 under Annexure-6. 5. Mr. A.K. Pati, learned Addl. Standing Counsel on the other hand contended that since the dispute is inter se in between the petitioner and Opp. Party No.3, this Court can pass appropriate order basing on the available materials. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the submissions made, this Court finds that in Dispute Case No.17 of 2023, petitioner filed her Written Statement on 21.06.2025 as found from Annexure-3. It is also found from the record that the matter was heard on Page 4 of 6 // 5 // 21.06.2025 and disposed of on the very same date vide order under Annexure-5. As further found, petitioner though filed an application to set aside the Ex-parte order on 09.07.2025 i.e. within the period of limitation under Annexure-2, but the same was rejected vide order dated 04.09.2025 under Annexure-6. 6.1. Since as found from the record, petitioner filed her Written Statement on 21.06.2025, the date fixed for hearing of the matter, it is the view of this Court that O.P. No.1 should have accepted the Written Statement and decide the dispute in accordance with law and on merit by giving due opportunity of hearing to all concerned. 6.2. Since without accepting the Written Statement, the matter was heard and disposed of on 21.06.2025 itself, it is the view of this Court that such an order could not have been passed by O.P. No.1 on 21.06.2025 under Annexure- 5. Not only that Misc. Case No.12 of 2025 so filed by the petitioner under Annexure-2 to set aside the Ex-parte order was also filed within the period of limitation. But the same was rejected vide order dated 04.09.2025 under Annexure-6. 6.3. In view of the aforesaid analysis, this Court is inclined to quash order dated 21.06.2025 and order dated 04.09.2025 so passed by O.P. No.1 under Annexure-5 and 6 respectively. While quashing both the orders, this Court remits the matter to O.P. No.1 to take a fresh decision by Page 5 of 6 // 6 // accepting the written statement filed by the petitioner on 21.06.2025 under Annexure-3. This Court directs O.P. No.1 to take a fresh decision by giving due opportunity of hearing to all concerned on or before 31.10.2025 if there is no other legal impediment. Petitioner and O.P. No.3 are directed to appear before the O.P. No.1 along with a copy of this order on 27.10.2025. On production of the certified copy, O.P. No.1 shall act as directed. 7. The Writ Petition stands disposed of accordingly. (Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Judge Basudev Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BASUDEV SWAIN Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 26-Sep-2025 16:05:54 Page 6 of 6