PURNENDU PANIGRAHI Vs. DEBMANI ATHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This CMAPL has been filed by the petitioners (those were the appellants in the Regular Second Appeal vide R.S.A. No.41 of 2011) against the Opposite Parties (those were the respondents in the Regular Second Appeal vide R.S.A. No.41 of 2011) praying for readmission of the R.S.A. No.41 of 2011 after setting aside its dismissal order passed on dtd. 5/10/2023.

(2.) According to the petitioners, they (petitioners along with Bimelndu Panigrahi) were the appellants in the R.S.A. No.41 of 2011 and the said Bimelndu Panigrahi was the appellant No.3 in that R.S.A.

(3.) The above default of the petitioners (appellants in that R.S.A. No.41 of 2011) was neither deliberate nor intentional, but on account of the above unfortunate incidents as stated above, they (petitioners) could not remain present in the Court on that day i.e. on 5/10/2023 and the aforesaid dismissal order of the R.S.A. No.41 of 2011 on dtd. 5/10/2023 was also not known to the petitioners. They (petitioners) came to know about the same for the first time on dtd. 6/3/2024 from the staffs in the office of their engaged deceased learned Sr. Counsel J.M.Mohanty. So, the petitioners filed this CMAPL praying for setting aside the dismissal Order dtd. 5/10/2023 passed in R.S.A. No.41 of 2011 and to restore the same to its original position as it was on dtd. 5/10/2023 prior to its dismissal and to fix that Second Appeal for its hearing on merit or else, they (petitioners) shall be prejudiced seriously and shall also sustain irreparable loss. Because, they (petitioners) have vital interest in the disputed properties involved in the R.S.A. No.41 of 2011 and they (petitioners) have also every chance of success in that R.S.A. No.41 of 2011 after its hearing on merit.