p. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK RVWPET No. 143 of 2025 Chameli Rout …. Petitioner Dr. Sujata Dash, Advocate -versus- Cuttack Bar Association, Cuttack and others …. Opposite Parties Mr. Gopal Kumar Agarwal, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Nityabrata Behuria, Advocate for OP No.1 CORAM: HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND HON’BLE MR JUSTICE MURAHARI SRI RAMAN Order No. ORDER 12.01.2026 03. 1. The instant review application is filed assailing an order dated 30th April, 2025 passed in W.A. No.740 of 2025, whereby and whereunder, the said appeal was dismissed primarily on the ground that the petitioner cannot be considered as an “aggrieved person”. The entire gamut of the said order hovers around the above aspect, more particularly, when the Court has simply recorded the sequel of events happened in course of the hearing and adjourned the matter to another date for taking a conscious decision. p. 2 2. Paragraph-3 of Order No.6 dated 28th March, 2025 (passed in W.P.(C) No.7342 of 2025) is reflective of the fact that an undertaking was given by the appellant-review petitioner to appear in person, but could not make herself available at the time when the said matter was taken up by the learned single Judge. 3. Precisely, for such reason, this Court found that once the appellant failed to appear before the single Bench in person and the Court has adjourned the hearing by fixing another date, it does not make the appellant as an “aggrieved person”, providing a right of an appeal before the appellate forum. 4. However, in course of hearing, we noticed that the said Order No.6 dated 28th March, 2025 is comprised of two parts. The first part is quoted in the impugned order overlooking the other part by which the single Bench passed an interim order. The moment an interim order is passed against a person, he/she is regarded as an “aggrieved person”, if it affects any right, civil or constitutional, then the finding rendered by this Court in the impugned order that the appellant is not an “aggrieved person” nor has suffered any prejudice p. 3 by the first part of the order, is an error apparent on the face of the record. 5. We, thus, recall the order dated 30th April, 2025 passed in W.A. No.740 of 2025 in exercising our power of review, as we find that the said order contains an error apparent on the face of the record. 6. The review petition is, thus, disposed of. 7. Consequently, let the writ appeal being W.A. No.740 of 2025 be again listed before this Court on 19th January, 2026. 8. In the meantime, the appellant is directed to take all steps for effecting service of the copy of the writ appeal upon the respondents. In addition to the same, the copy of the writ appeal may be served upon the learned advocate on record of the writ petitioner- respondent in course of this day. (Harish Tandon) Chief Justice (M.S. Raman) Judge S. Behera Designation: Senior Stenographer