Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Orissa · body

2022 DAILYLAW 714 (ORI)

PRANATI SAHU v. PRAKASH SAHU

RPFAM/306/2022 · 2026-02-23

M S Sahoo

body2022

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

p. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK RPFAM No.306 of 2022 Pranati Sahu and another …. Petitioners None -versus- Prakash Sahu and others …. Opp. Parties CORAM: JUSTICE MRUGANKA SEKHAR SAHOO Order No. ORDER 23.02.2026 (Hybrid Mode) 03. 1. The matter was presented before this Court on 14.11.2022. After the stamp reporting on 22.11.2022, defect in the petition was pointed out which has not removed. The matter was placed before the learned Deputy Registrar (Judicial) and by order dated 21.11.2025, learned Deputy Registrar (Judicial) directed the defects should be removed within three weeks and the matter was directed be listed on 15.12.2025. Thereafter, on 11.02.2026, Mr. Umakanta Barik, learned counsel submitted that the petitioner has taken back the brief in the year 2023. On 11.02.2026, this Court passed the following order: “1. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that he and his learned associates have no further instructions as the Digitally Signed Signed by: RAJESH KUMAR BADHEI Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 27-Feb-2026 17:32:04 Signature Not Verified p. 2 petitioner has taken away the brief. It is stated that petitioner has obtained consent from the learned counsel in the year 2023. Memo of date is filed by the learned counsel, Mr. Barik stating the transfer of the brief and further stating that he has no instructions to appear. 2. The petitioner is absent on repeated calls. No other counsel has also appeared on behalf of the petitioner. 3. To grant further opportunity, list on 23.02.2026 indicating that the matter shall be disposed of. 4. Name of Mr. Umakanta Barik, learned Advocate and associates shall be deleted from the cause list as well as the case brief from the next listing. 2. Today when the matter is taken up, none appears for the petitioner. The petitioner is also absent on repeated calls. 3. Apparently, the petitioner has lost interest in prosecuting the matter and the petition is dismissed. (Mruganka Sekhar Sahoo) Judge Rajesh