Skip to content


Dhusei @ Dhusasan Behera Vs. Babaji Sethi (Dead) After Him Kailash Sethi and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtOrissa High Court
Decided On
Case NumberCivil Revision No. 767 of 1981
Judge
Reported in60(1985)CLT227; 1985(II)OLR232
AppellantDhusei @ Dhusasan Behera
RespondentBabaji Sethi (Dead) After Him Kailash Sethi and ors.
Appellant AdvocateB.H. Mohanty, S.C. Mohanty, J.K. Bastia, R.N. Panda, H.H. Swain and L.K. Parida
Respondent AdvocateS. Swain, Adv.
DispositionPetition dismissed
Cases Referred(Dolai Maliko v. Krushna Chandra Patnaik
Excerpt:
.....be altered or amended by such executive orders or circulars or instructions nor can they replace statutory rules. - by order dated 23-12-1933, opportunity was given to the petitioner to deposit the guardian cost by 15ch january, 1984, with direction to face the consequence of dismissal of the civil revision as against the minor on failure to deposit the costs within time granted. the principle laid down by the supreme court in the aforesaid decision would not be applicable since a party guilty of laches on failure to comply with the court's order should not get benefit for his laches......guardian cost by 15ch january, 1984, with direction to face the consequence of dismissal of the civil revision as against the minor on failure to deposit the costs within time granted. the guardian cost not having been deposited within the time granted and no steps having been taken for extension of time, the civil revision stood dismissed as against the minor. the effect of dismissal of the civil revision is that the decree so far as her interest became final.3. mr. mohanty, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the other opposite parties having appeared and the minor having joint interest in the civil revision, importance should not be given to the dismissal of the civil revision as against the minor. he submitted that the principles in a. i. r. 1976 s. c. 49 (dolai.....
Judgment:

S.C. Mohapatra, J.

1. This is an application challenging the order of the appellate Court confirming the order of the trial Court refusing to set aside an ex parte decree.

2. During pendency of this Civil Revision, the opposite party Babaji Sethi expired. An application for substitution was made and was allowed. Opposite party No. 1 (c) Jamuna Sethi, daughter of the deceased Babaji was a minor. Since the natural guardian of Jamuna did not appear in this Court to represent her cause he was discharged and the petitioner was called upon to deposit the guardian cost for appointment of a Court guardian. By order dated 23-12-1933, opportunity was given to the petitioner to deposit the guardian cost by 15ch January, 1984, with direction to face the consequence of dismissal of the Civil Revision as against the minor on failure to deposit the costs within time granted. The guardian cost not having been deposited within the time granted and no steps having been taken for extension of time, the Civil Revision stood dismissed as against the minor. The effect of dismissal of the Civil Revision is that the decree so far as her interest became final.

3. Mr. Mohanty, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the other opposite parties having appeared and the minor having joint interest in the Civil Revision, importance should not be given to the dismissal of the Civil Revision as against the minor. He submitted that the principles in A. I. R. 1976 S. C. 49 (Dolai Maliko v. Krushna Chandra Patnaik ) should be applied to this as the interest has sufficiently been represented. The principle laid down by the Supreme Court in the aforesaid decision would not be applicable since a party guilty of laches on failure to comply with the Court's order should not get benefit for his laches. It is not a case of inadvertent omission as was the fact in the Supreme Court decision.

4. In the result, the Civil Revision is dismissed. No costs.


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