SATTWIKA PANDA Vs. OCL INDIA LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Shri P.K. Routray, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri S.P. Sarangi, learned counsel for the opposite party.

(2.) The impugned order has been challenged by the petitioner on two counts, firstly, in the plaint the plaintiff has not been represented properly and secondly, there is no proper signature at the space meant for verificant. It is in the premises, Shri Routray, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that since the defects pointed out in the application considered in the impugned order comes under the purview of Order 7 rule 11 (a) of C.P.C, petitioner had a justified prayer but however, it appears, there is improper consideration of the application by the trial court.

(3.) Shri Sarangi, learned counsel for the opposite party however, taking this Court to the provision at Order 7 rule 11 of C.P.C. submitted that none of the grounds raised attracts the provision at Order 7 Rule 11 of C.P.C., he thus prayed this Court for dismissal of the Writ Petition.