The High Court
Case Details
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: ROJALIN NAYAK Designation: JUNIOR STENOGRAPHER Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 07-Nov-2025 16:11:13 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C). NO.24842 of 2024 …. Priyananda Samantaray Petitioner Mr. Prasanta Kumar Satapathy, Advocate -versus- The Chairperson, Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal Kolkata and others …. Opp. Parties Mr. Pradeep Kumar Dasmohapatra, Advocate (For Opp. Party No.3)
Legal Reasoning
Mr. Sitanshu Kumar Dey, Advocate (For Opp. Party No.5) CORAM: JUSTICE K.R. MOHAPATRA JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MISHRA Order No. 09. IA No.11763 OF 2025
Decision
ORDER 06.11.2025 1. 2. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode. This IA has been filed for recalling the order dated 11th July, 2025, by which, IA Nos.6932 of 2025 and 10324 of 2025 were dismissed for non-prosecution. 3. Considering the submission made by learned counsel for the parties, order dated 11th July, 2025 is recalled and both the IAs, i.e., IA Nos.6932 of 2025 and 10324 of 2025 are restored to file. 4. The IA is disposed of accordingly. (K.R. Mohapatra) Judge (S.K. Mishra) Judge Page 1 of 4 P.T.O. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: ROJALIN NAYAK Designation: JUNIOR STENOGRAPHER Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 07-Nov-2025 16:11:13 10. IA Nos.6932 of 2025, 10324 of 2025, 15169 of 2025 1. IA No.6932 of 2025 has been filed for extension of time to comply with order dated 10th April, 2025 passed by the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Kolkata (for brevity ‘the Appellate Tribunal’) in Appeal (Diary) No.201 of 2024. 2. IA Nos.10324 and 15169 of 2025 have been filed to recall order dated 10th April, 2025 passed in the aforesaid Appeal and to direct the Appellate Tribunal to accept the differential amount of Rs.7,75,637/- towards pre-deposit. 3. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 4. Mr. Satapathy, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that while disposing of the writ petition vide order dated 10th April, 2025, directing as order; “8. In view of the above, this Court, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case of the Petitioner, disposes of the writ petition with a direction that in the event, the Petitioner by making the deposit in terms of order dated 2nd May, 2024 passed by the DRAT under Annexure-14 moves an application within a period of two weeks for restoration of the Appeal, the same shall be considered in accordance with law giving opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned.” 5. But, the Petitioner could not arrange the entire amount of Rs.7,75,637/- within the stipulate period. Hence, he tendered a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- towards pre-deposit and prayed for extension of time to pay the differential amount. The said amount was not accepted by learned Appellate Tribunal. Hence, the Petitioner moved this Court in IA No.6932 of 2025. 6. The Petitioner also filed IA No.10324 of 2025 to recall the order of acceptance of the Demand Draft dated 12th June, 2025 for the differential amount of Rs.7,75,637/- as learned Appellate Tribunal did not accept the differential amount sought to be Page 2 of 4 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: ROJALIN NAYAK Designation: JUNIOR STENOGRAPHER Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 07-Nov-2025 16:11:13 deposited beyond the period stipulated by this Court. However, both the IAs, i.e., IA Nos.6932 and 10324 of 2025 were dismissed for non-prosecution vide order 11th July, 2025. The said order has already been recalled by order of even date in IA No.11763 of 2025. As such, all the IAs are taken up together for consideration. 7. Mr. Satapathy, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that in the meantime, learned Appellate Tribunal vide order dated 11th August, 2025, permitted the Petitioner to deposit the differential amount towards pre-deposit subject to decision of this Court. The said amount has already been deposited within the time stipulated in order dated 11th August, 2025 of learned Appellate Tribunal and is pending with the Registrar of learned Appellate Tribunal. 8. In view of such submission, he prays for direction to learned Appellate Tribunal to accept the said amount and to restore the Appeal for adjudication on merit. 9. Mr. Dasmohapatra, learned counsel for Indian Bank vehemently objects to the same and submits that an application for extension of time in a disposed of writ petition is not maintainable. It is his submission that although opportunities were given, but the Petitioner failed to deposit the amount towards pre-deposit for admission of the Appeal. He, therefore, prays for dismissal of all the three IAs. 10. Mr. Dey, learned counsel for the Auction Purchaser- Opposite Party No.5 also supported the submission of Mr. Dasmohapatra, learned counsel for Indian Bank and submits that since the Petitioner has not complied with the direction of this Court, learned Appellate Tribunal rightly refused to accept the same. Further, order dated 11th August, 2025 passed by learned Page 3 of 4 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: ROJALIN NAYAK Designation: JUNIOR STENOGRAPHER Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 07-Nov-2025 16:11:13 Appellate Tribunal gives a fresh cause of action to the Petitioner. Hence, IAs for extension of time and for acceptance of the differential amount towards pre-deposit are not maintainable. 11. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 12. This Court finds that there is some delay on the part of the Petitioner to deposit the entire amount towards pre-deposit for acceptance of the Appeal. But, in the meantime, vide order dated 11th August, 2025, learned Appellate Tribunal permitted the Petitioner to deposit the differential amount within a period of one week from the date of the said order subject to the decision of this Court. It is submitted by Mr. Satapathy, learned counsel for the Petitioner and not disputed by learned counsel for the Opposite Parties that has already been deposited with the Registrar of learned Appellate Tribunal and is pending with him. 13. In that view of the matter, this Court taking a lenient view of the matter, disposes of the IAs with a direction to Appellate Tribunal to accept pre-deposit already made by the Petitioner and proceed with the matter in accordance with the direction of this Court vide order dated 10th April, 2025 by which, the writ petition was disposed of. Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application. Rojalin (K.R. Mohapatra) Judge (S.K. Mishra) Judge Page 4 of 4