Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Orissa · body

2025 DAILYLAW 33982 (ORI)

MAMATA MOHAPATRA v. BHABANI SANKAR NAYAK

TRP(C)/182/2022 · 2025-06-23

Sanjay Kumar Mishra

Transfer Petitionbody2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

p. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK TRP(C) No.182 of 2022 Mamata Mohapatra …. Petitioner None -versus- Bhabani Shankar Nayak …. Opposite Party CORAM: JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MISHRA Order No. ORDER 23.06.2025 03. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode. 2. Though , pursuant to order dated 27.05.2022, notice on admission and stay was issued to the Opposite Party by Registered Post with A.D. fixing the date of appearance to 24.06.2022, as per the office note, the said notice returned undelivered with postal endorsement “No such person available in this village”. 3. As is ascertained from the record, the address in which notice was issued to the Opposite Party is as furnished by him in C.P. No.456 of 2018 preferred by himself before the Judge, Family Court, Bhubaneswar. 4. That apart, the extract of order dated 27.05.2022, vide which further proceeding in C.P. No.456 of 2018 was stayed by this Court, was also communicated to the Court below vide Memo No.12278 dated 04.06.2022. Hence, it can be well presumed that the present Opposite Party, p. 2 being Petitioner in C.P. No.456 of 2018, must be well aware about the pendency of the present transfer petition. 5. However, in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in AIR 1989 SC 630 (M/s. Madan & Co. Vs. Wazir Jaivir Chand), in (1999) 7 SCC 510 (K. Bhaskaran Vs. Sankaran Vaidhyan Balan & anr.), in (2006) 6 SCC 456 (D. Vinod Shivappa Vs. Nanda Belliappa), in (2007) 6 SCC 555 (C.C. Alivi Haji Vs. Palapetty Muhammed & anr.) and in (2014) 12 SCC 685 (Ajeet Seeds Limited Vs. K. Gopal Krishnaiah), notice on the Opposite Party is deemed to be sufficient. 6. As the Counsel for the Petitioner is absent on call, the transfer petition stands dismissed for non- prosecution granting liberty to the Petitioner to file appropriate application for recall of this order, if any cause of action still survives. 7. Interim order dated 27.05.2022 passed in I.A. No.201 of 2022 stands vacated. 8. Office is directed to communicate a copy of this order to the Court below. Kanhu (S.K. Mishra) Judge Cuttack.