Skip to content


Harekrushna Patra Vs. Rekhamani Das - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtOrissa High Court
Decided On
Case NumberCivil Revn. No. 96 of 1973
Judge
Reported inAIR1974Ori185; 39(1973)CLT944
ActsCode of Civil Procedure (CPC) , 1908 - Sections 115
AppellantHarekrushna Patra
RespondentRekhamani Das
Appellant AdvocateR.N. Sinha, Adv.
Respondent AdvocateR.H. Mohanty, Adv.
DispositionApplication dismissed
Excerpt:
.....the filing of the appeal and not to the deposit to be made. it, therefore, appears that an appeal filed under section 173 cannot be entertained i.e. cannot be admitted for consideration unless the statutory deposit is made and for this purpose the court has the discretion either to grant time to make the deposit or not. no formal order condoning the delay is necessary, an order of adjournment would suffice. the provisions of limitation embodied in the substantive provision of the sub-section (1) of section 173 of the act does not extend to the provision relating to the deposit of statutory amount as embodies in the first proviso. therefore an appeal filed within the period of limitation or within the extended period of limitation, cannot be admitted for hearing on merit unless the..........c. was made which was registered as misc. case no. 53 of 1967. the misc. case was allowed and the suit was restored to file. on 10th of january, 1969 the suit was decreed ex parte for the second time. again an application under order 9, rule 13, civil p. c. was made on 5-2-1969 which was registered as misc. case no. 10 of 1969. this misc. case was dismissed for default on 19-11-1970. misc. case no. 44 of 1970 was filed under section 151, civil p. c. for restoration of misc. case no. 10 of 1969. this misc. case was allowed and misc. case no. 10 of 1969 was restored to file on 20th of april, 1971. again misc. case no. 10 of 1969 was dismissed for default on 23-6-1971. misc. case no. 29 of 1971 was filed under section 151, civil p. c. for restoration of misc. case no. 10 of 1969 for the.....
Judgment:
ORDER

G.K. Misra, C.J.

1. This case is an illustration of the scandalous state of affairs prevailing in some of the subordinate courts. The facts narrated hereunder would speak for themselves. Money Suit No. 8 of 1964 was filed in 1964. After several adjournments the suit was decreed ex parte on 11-8-1967. On 30th of August, 1967 an application under Order 9, Rule 13, Civil P. C. was made which was registered as Misc. Case No. 53 of 1967. The Misc. case was allowed and the suit was restored to file. On 10th of January, 1969 the suit was decreed ex parte for the second time. Again an application under Order 9, Rule 13, Civil P. C. was made on 5-2-1969 which was registered as Misc. Case No. 10 of 1969. This misc. case was dismissed for default on 19-11-1970. Misc. Case No. 44 of 1970 was filed under Section 151, Civil P. C. for restoration of Misc. Case No. 10 of 1969. This misc. case was allowed and Misc. Case No. 10 of 1969 was restored to file on 20th of April, 1971. Again Misc. Case No. 10 of 1969 was dismissed for default on 23-6-1971. Misc. Case No. 29 of 1971 was filed under Section 151, Civil P. C. for restoration of Misc. Case No. 10 of 1969 for the second time. On 16th of February, 1971 Misc. Case No. 29 of 1971 was allowed and Misc. CaseNo. 10 of 1969 was restored to file. Again Misc. Case No. 10 of 1969 was dismissed for default on 18th of November, 1972. Misc. Case No. 62 of 1972 was filed under Section 151, Civil P. C. on 9-12-1972 for restoration of Misc. Case No. 10 of 1969. Misc. Case No. 62 of 1972 was allowed on 30th of January, 1973 and Misc. Case No. 10 of 1969 was restored to file. It is against the order passed on 30th of January, 1973 that this civil revision has been filed.

2. As I have already stated, the bare narration of facts speaks for itself. The learned Subordinate Judge has absolutely no control over judicial proceedings and the entire proceeding in Court was practically to the direction of the advocate for the defendant. In course of argument Mr. B. N. Mohanty who appears in lower courts as well as here made a request that he was prepared to compensate the advocate for the petitioner by payment of Rs. 100/- for the defendant having resorted to dilatory tactics. As this is a civil revision and involves a question of jurisdiction I am not inclined to interfere with the impugned order despite the gross irregularities and lack of control evinced in this case by the learned Subordinate Judge.

3. In the result, the civil revision is dismissed; but the opposite party would pay Rs. 100/- to the plaintiff within one week from today. The suit be disposed of within three months from today. The lower Court records be sent back at once.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //