The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CMP No.1372 of 2024 Gynendranath Das & others Petitioners …. Mr. D.K. Pradhan, Advocate -Versus- Bidyadhar Sahoo & others …. Opposite Parties None CORAM: MR. JUSTICE R.K. PATTANAIK ORDER 18.02.2025 Order No. 01. 1. 2.
Legal Reasoning
Heard Mr. Pradhan, learned counsel for the petitioners. No notices are issued to the opposite parties as the matter is
Decision
disposed of at the stage of admission. 3. Instant petition is filed by the petitioners challenging the impugned order dated 23rd October, 2024 under Anexure-1 in C.S. No. 123 of 2021 by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Ranpur, whereby, an application under Section 148 CPC with a request to accept WS from them was declined and dismissed. 4. Mr. Pradhan, learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners were debarred from filing of the WS by order dated 19th July, 2022 and admittedly, there has been delay and with reasons explained, an application under Section 148 CPC was filed to accept the same, after the suit was transferred to the Court of learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Ranpur. It is submitted that the petitioners do have a substantial interest involved since the suit is for declaring sale deeds executed in 2009 in their favour as null and void with such other consequential reliefs Page 1 of 4 including declaration of right, title and interest in respect thereof besides confirmation of possession and in case, WS is not accepted, all of them would be severely prejudiced. It is further submitted by Mr. Pradhan, learned counsel that there is no straight jacket rule to accept or not to accept the pleading from the side of a defendant after expiry of 90 days, which has been reiterated in catena of decisions and even though, there has been delay, in the case at hand, the WS filed by the petitioners in the year, 2024 ought to have been accepted in the interest of justice. Furthermore, it is submitted that the reason for such delay has been explained as per Annexure-4 but the same was not entertained and believed by the learned Court below. In support of such contention, Mr. Pradhan, learned counsel for the petitioners cited a decision of this Court in Bhabatosh Sinha Vrs. Prava Sinha and others reported in (2005)100 CLT 598. The submission is that in order to do substantial justice, the WS of the petitioners is needed to be accepted by the learned Court below instead of dismissing the application filed in terms of Section 148 C.P.C. 5. Perused the plaint, a copy of which is at Annexure-2 besides WS at Annexure-3. As earlier stated, the suit is for declaration of right, title and interest and challenging the sale deeds of the year, 2009 executed in favour of the petitioners. In fact, according to Mr. Pradhan, learned counsel for the petitioners, petitioner Nos.2 to 5 and predecessor-in-interest of opposite party Nos.3 to 6 are the vendors in respect of the suit schedule land executed in favour of petitioner No.1 and the same is under challenge in the suit with other reliefs asked for. Gone through the application filed under Section 148 C.P.C is as at Annexure-4. The reason as is shown therein is on account of transfer of the suit from the Court at Page 2 of 4 Nayagarh to the court of learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Ranpur. 6. Mr. Pradhan, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that such being the reason and delay, it was to be condoned by the learned court below accepting the WS filed by the petitioners. It is further submitted that such acceptance of WS should be allowed with cost otherwise the petitioners would be substantially prejudiced. In Bhabatosh Sinha (supra), this Court had the occasion to consider the purport of Order 8 Rule 1 C.P.C. and considering earlier decisions in Krushna Chandra Sahoo Vs. Shyamsundar Sahoo and others and Girish Chandra Ray V. Umakanta Mohanty and others 2005(1) CLR-1 held and observed that the time period stipulated therein is not an iron tight jacket and in a given case, if the Court is satisfied that there are valid grounds and reasons, it can extend such time to file the W.S. Considering the case laws cited as hereinabove and submission of Mr. Pradhan, learned counsel for the petitioner, the Court is of the view that a reason is assigned for the delay in filing of case as made to reveal from Annexure-2. Such delay is on account of transfer of the suit made to appear from Annexure-4. Of course, the suit was transferred in 2023 vide order dated 28th November, 2023. In fact, the petitioners were debarred from filling the WS by order dated 19th July, 2023 and on the subsequent date i.e. 28th November, 2023, the Court at Ranpur passed the order and at last, on 24th June, 2024, such an application 148 C.P.C. was moved and pressed into service. Admittedly, there has been delay. Immediately after transfer of the suit, the Court at Ranpur issued notice to the petitioners and during such time, in the month of July, 2024, the application under Section 148 C.P.C. was filed along with a request to accept the same. Considering the above facts and delay assigning reason, the Court is of the humble view Page 3 of 4 that learned Court below should have condoned the same accepting the WS imposing costs payable to the opposite parties. In other words, regard being had to the settled legal position with reference to the case laws cited above, the Court reaches at a conclusion that in the interest of justice, the delay is needed to be condoned in order to facilitate disposal of the suit on merit, especially when, the right, title and interest vis-(cid:224)-vis the suit schedule property is involved and the petitioners having purchased the same via sale deeds of the year, 2009, which are sought to be declared as null and void. 7. 8. Hence, it is ordered. In the result, the petition stands allowed. Consequently, the impugned order dated 23rd October, 2024 under Annexure-1 passed in C.S. No. 123 of 2021 by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Ranpur is hereby set aside. As a necessary corollary, the WS is directed to be accepted from the petitioners subject to cost of Rs.2000/- payable to the contesting opposite parties. 9. In the circumstances, however, there is no order as to costs. 10. Urgent certified copy of this order be issued as per rules. (R.K. Pattanaik) Judge Balaram Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BALARAM BEHERA Reason: Authentication Location: OHC, CTC Date: 19-Feb-2025 10:40:39 Page 4 of 4