IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK WA No.75 of 2026 Bank of Maharashtra, Jagatsinghpur Branch, Durgabazar … Appellant Mr. Srinibas Khandai, Advocate -Versus- Soubhagya Chandra Biswal and others … Respondents CORAM: THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MURAHARI SRI RAMAN Order No. ORDER 09.03.2026 01. 1. The instant writ appeal is filed by the appellant-Bank assailing the order dated 2nd December, 2025 passed by the Single Bench in WP(C) No.19497 of 2025, which reads thus:- “1. This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement. 2. The Petitioner, by filing this Writ Petition, has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India with a prayer to direct the Opposite Party No.1 to waive the negative balance amount and the bank interest thereon arising out of unauthorized transaction made by the Opposite Party No.1 in C/A No.60389615890 of the Petitioner. 3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner is maintaining C/A No. 60389615890 with the Opposite Party No.1/Bank. The Petitioner issued a cheque in favour of the Opposite Party No.2 which was dishonoured on its presentation due to insufficient of funds. The Petitioner immediately arranged funds from his well-wishers and deposited in his said C/A No. 60389615890 and made payment to the Opposite Party No.2 through RTGS. Subsequently, the Opposite Party No.1 made payment against the said dishonoured cheque to the Opposite Party No.2 by creating Over Draft Facility in said C/A No. 60389615890 without the knowledge and permission of the Petitioner. The Petitioner has never applied for OD facility before the Opposite Party No.2/Bank. Resultantly, the Petitioner has negative balance in his C/A No. 60389615890. The Opposite Party No.1/Bank has also charged bank Interest on the Over Draft amount and freezeed the Gold Loan account of the Petitioner. Hence this Writ Petition. 4. The Law Officer, Bank of Maharashtra, who present before this Court undertakes that the issue will be resolved within one month. 5. Considering the submissions made and on going through the averments taken in the Writ Petition as well as the documents annexed; this Court grants one month time to the Opposite Party No.1 to resolve the issue raised by the present Petitioner, failing which the Petitioner is free to file Contempt petition. 6. Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands disposed of.” 2. Upon perusal of the impugned order, it is manifest that the writ petition was disposed of as the officer of the Bank assured to the Court that the dispute would be resolved within a month therefrom. The Court did not enter into the merit or demerit of the case as the appellant-Bank was inclined to resolve the dispute and, therefore, the impugned order cannot be said to have caused any prejudice to the appellant-Bank. 3. Since the right of the parties has not been adjudicated upon, the appellant-Bank cannot be said to be an aggrieved person to maintain the instant writ appeal, which is hereby dismissed. (Harish Tandon) Chief Justice (M.S. Raman) Judge MRS/Laxmikant Designation: Senior Stenographer