Banki Muhan Ramachandi Thakurani Vs. Hajuri Prafulla Chandra Khuntia and ors. Semantic Analysis

Semantic Analysis by spaCy

Banki Muhan Ramachandi Thakurani Vs. Hajuri Prafulla Chandra Khuntia and ors.

Decided On : Oct-31-2008

Court : Orissa

Notice (8): Undefined index: topics [APP/View/Case/meta.ctp, line 36]Code Context

$shops2 = $shops['topics'];
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/meta.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Banki Muhan Ramachandi Thakurani Vs. Hajuri Prafulla Chandra Khuntia and ors. Semantic Analysis',
	'shops' => array(
		'LAW' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'Section 20',
			(int) 1 => 'Section 5 of the Limitation Act'
		),
		'PERSON' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'L. Mohapatra',
			(int) 1 => 'J.1',
			(int) 2 => 'Misc',
			(int) 3 => 'Misc',
			(int) 4 => 'Hal Khata No',
			(int) 5 => 'Hal Plot',
			(int) 6 => 'Chandra Rath',
			(int) 7 => 'Misc',
			(int) 8 => 'Misc',
			(int) 9 => 'S. Mishra-II',
			(int) 10 => 'S. Mishra-II',
			(int) 11 => 'Misc',
			(int) 12 => 'Misc',
			(int) 13 => 'Bench',
			(int) 14 => 'Demand Draft/Cheque',
			(int) 15 => 'S. Mishra-II',
			(int) 16 => 'Misc',
			(int) 17 => 'J.7'
		),
		'CARDINAL' => array(
			(int) 0 => '27.6.2000',
			(int) 1 => '5705',
			(int) 2 => '1999.2',
			(int) 3 => '27.6.2000',
			(int) 4 => '27.6.2000',
			(int) 5 => '3.2.2000',
			(int) 6 => '12.5.2000',
			(int) 7 => '2000',
			(int) 8 => '27.6.2000',
			(int) 9 => '27.6.2000',
			(int) 10 => '27.9.2007',
			(int) 11 => '27.6.2000',
			(int) 12 => '27.6.2000',
			(int) 13 => '27.6.2000',
			(int) 14 => '27.6.2000',
			(int) 15 => '7.1.2004',
			(int) 16 => '7.1.2004',
			(int) 17 => '151',
			(int) 18 => '27'
		),
		'DATE' => array(
			(int) 0 => '1555',
			(int) 1 => '2000',
			(int) 2 => '1995',
			(int) 3 => '27.12.2002',
			(int) 4 => '1029',
			(int) 5 => '1030',
			(int) 6 => '1555',
			(int) 7 => 'three days',
			(int) 8 => '1555',
			(int) 9 => 'July, 2000',
			(int) 10 => '14.9.2007',
			(int) 11 => 'the very same day',
			(int) 12 => 'one year',
			(int) 13 => '2004',
			(int) 14 => '2004',
			(int) 15 => '1971',
			(int) 16 => 'the period of one year',
			(int) 17 => '5705'
		),
		'ORG' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'the O.E.A. Collector',
			(int) 1 => 'Board of Revenue',
			(int) 2 => 'Cuttack',
			(int) 3 => 'Court',
			(int) 4 => 'Ac.0.51',
			(int) 5 => 'Court',
			(int) 6 => 'Court',
			(int) 7 => 'Shri N.C.',
			(int) 8 => 'Shri N.C.',
			(int) 9 => 'Court',
			(int) 10 => 'Court',
			(int) 11 => 'Court',
			(int) 12 => 'Shri N.C. Pati',
			(int) 13 => 'Shri N.C.',
			(int) 14 => 'Shri N.C.',
			(int) 15 => 'Shri N.C.',
			(int) 16 => 'Court',
			(int) 17 => 'Counsel Shri Pati',
			(int) 18 => 'Irrigation and Ors',
			(int) 19 => 'Supp',
			(int) 20 => 'Court',
			(int) 21 => 'the Contempt of Courts Act',
			(int) 22 => 'Court',
			(int) 23 => 'Court',
			(int) 24 => 'the Registry of this Court'
		),
		'GPE' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'Puri',
			(int) 1 => 'Khemchand'
		),
		'WORK_OF_ART' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'Shri Ramesh Chandra Rath'
		)
	),
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '536842',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => '',
			'appellant' => 'Banki Muhan Ramachandi Thakurani',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Banki Muhan Ramachandi Thakurani Vs. Hajuri Prafulla Chandra Khuntia and ors.',
			'casenote' => ' - Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002], 110 & 104 & Letters Patent, 1865, Clause 10: [Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Letters Patent  Appeal  Order of Single Judge of High Court passed while deciding matters filed under Order 43, Rule1 of C.P.C., -  Held, After introduction of Section 110A in the C.P.C., by 2002 Amendment Act, no Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable against judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge of a High Court. A right of appeal, even though a vested one, can be taken away by law. It is pertinent to note that Section 100-A introduced by 2002 Amendment of the Code starts with a non obstante clause. The purpose of such clause is to give the enacting part of an overriding effect in the case of a conflict with laws mentioned with the non obstante clause. The legislative intention is thus very clear that the law enacted shall have full operation and there would be no impediment. It is well settled that the definition of judgment in Section 2(9) of C.P.C., is much wider and more liberal, Intermediary or interlocutory judgment fall in the category of orders referred to Clause (a) to (w) of Order 43, Rule 1 and also such other orders which poses the characteristic and trapping of finality and may adversely affect a valuable right of a party or decide an important aspect of a trial in an ancillary proceeding. Amended Section 100-A of the Code clearly stipulates that where any appeal from an original or appellate decree or order is heard and decided by a Single Judge of a High Court, no further appeal shall lie. Even otherwise, the word judgment as defined under Section 2(9) means a statement given by a Judge on the grounds of a decree or order. Thus the contention that against an order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal filed under Section 104 C.P.C., a further appeal lies to a Division Bench cannot be accepted. The newly incorporated Section 100A in clear and specific terms prohibits further appeal against the decree and judgment or order of a Single Judge to a Division Bench notwithstanding anything contained in the Letters Patent. The Letters Patent which provides for further appeal to a Division Bench remains intact, but the right to prefer a further appeal is taken away even in respect of the matters arising under the special enactments or other instruments having the force of law be it against original/appellate decree or order heard and decided by a Single Judge. It has to be kept in mind that the special statute only provide for an Appeal to the High Court. It has not made any provision for filing appeal to a Division Bench against the judgment or decree or order of a Single Judge. No Letters Patent Appeal shall lie against a judgment/order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal arising out of a proceeding under a Special Act.

Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002] & 104:[Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Writ Appeal  Held, A Writ Appeal shall lie against judgment/orders passed by Single Judge in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In a writ application filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution, if any order/judgment/decree is passed in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226, a writ appeal will lie. But, no writ appeal will lie against a judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge in exercising powers of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. 
 -  Collector, Puri in Annexure-1 as well as Member, Board of Revenue, Cuttack in O. It is also alleged that the contemnors after receiving the order and being well aware about the direction given by this Court executed the registered sale deed on 27.12.2002 in respect of the disputed plot namely, Hal Khata No. The records of the writ application clearly show that the contemnors engaged Advocates to appear on their behalf.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'Khemchand Agrawal v. Commissioner;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => '',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Orissa',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2008-10-31',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' L. Mohapatra and; I. Mahanty, JJ.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">L. Mohapatra, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This contempt application has been filed alleging disobedience of the order dated 27.6.2000 passed in Misc. Case No. 1555 of 2000 arising out of O.J.C. No. 5705 of 1999.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The writ application has been filed challenging the order of the O.E.A. Collector, Puri in Annexure-1 as well as Member, Board of Revenue, Cuttack in O.E.A. Revision No. 9 of 1995. In the writ application the above Misc. Case was filed for grant of injunction and by order dated 27.6.2000 this Court considering the nature of dispute restrained the contemnors from alienating the disputed land till disposal of the writ application. In the contempt petition, it is alleged that the said order was passed in presence of learned Counsel appearing for the contemnors and therefore, it is construed to be within the knowledge of the contemnors. It is also alleged that the contemnors after receiving the order and being well aware about the direction given by this Court executed the registered sale deed on 27.12.2002 in respect of the disputed plot namely, Hal Khata No. 450/7, Hal Plot, No. 1029 covering an area of Ac.0.261 decimals corresponding to Sabik Plot No. 409 (R) and Sabik Plot No. 407(P) covering an area of Ac.0.51 decimals corresponding to Hal Plot No. 1030 in total Ac.0.312 decimals. After receipt of notice in the contempt, a reply has been filed by the contemnors. In the said reply it is stated that at the time of execution of the sale deed they were not aware of the order dated 27.6.2000 passed by this Court. Only on 3.2.2000 notices were received by them in the writ application on the question of admission whereafter they engaged Shri Ramesh Chandra Rath, Advocate on their behalf. After receipt of notice in the contempt application, it was found that on 29.2.2000 Shri Ramesh Chandra Rath and Prafulla Kumar Rath, Advocates filed vakalatanama on their behalf and after their appearance, Misc. Case No. 1555 of 2000 was filed by the petitioner but copy was not served. By order dated 12.5.2000 the Court directed to serve a copy of the Misc. Case on the counsel appearing for them with in three days, but the same was not done. In the meantime, the petitioner changed his counsel by engaging late S. Mishra-II by disengaging the previous counsel. After appearance of late S. Mishra-II on behalf of the petitioner, the counsel appearing for the contemnors without disclosing about filing of Misc. Case No. 1555 of 2000 informed them about their unwillingness to conduct the case and gave consent. In July, 2000 the contemnors executed a fresh vakalatnama in favour of Shri N.C. Pati, Advocate to appear on their behalf. Though on 27.6.2000 the said Misc. Case was taken up for orders, it appears that the said order was passed in absence of the learned Counsel appearing for the contemnors and the appearance of Shri N.C. Pati and his associates had not been printed in the cause list as a result of which, they could not appear on the said date. Therefore, it cannot be said that the said order was passed in presence of the learned Counsel appearing for the contemnors. The order dated 27.6.2000 was not intimated to the contemnors. Had they been aware of the said order, they would not have executed the sale deed. In course of hearing of this contempt petition, another Bench of this Court directed the contemnors to deposit the sale price under the sale deed in favour of the Court by way of Demand Draft/Cheque. In pursuance of the said order, a sum of Rs. 2,50,000/- was deposited by way of cheque on 14.9.2007 and further sum of Rs. 4,000/- was undertaken to be deposited by way of cheque. On 27.9.2007 a further sum of Rs. 4,000/- was deposited by way of cheque and it was directed that the cheques shall be renewed from time to time.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The question to be decided in this contempt application is as to whether the contemnors have wilfully and deliberately violated the order passed by this Court on 27.6.2000 by executing a sale deed in spite of the injunction order. The records of the writ application clearly show that the contemnors engaged Advocates to appear on their behalf. After appearance of late S. Mishra-II, Advocate on behalf of the petitioner, the contemnors also changed the counsel and engaged Shri N.C. Pati and his associates to appear on their behalf. The order dated 27.6.2000 shows that on the said date Shri N.C. Pati and his associates filed vakalatnama. Even though their names had not been printed in the cause list on behalf of the contemnors in the writ application, in the Misc. Case the interim order was passed. Therefore, there was no possibility of printing the name of Shri N.C. Pati and his associates in the cause list on 27.6.2000 because they appeared on behalf of the contemnors only on that date. We are therefore unable to accept the contention of the learned Counsel appearing for the contemnors that the order was not passed in the presence of their Advocates since Shri N.C. Pati and his associates filed vakalatnama in Court on the very same day on their behalf in the writ application. The copy of the order had not been communicated as it appears from the office note in the writ application and it is the specific stand of the contemnors that the said order had not been communicated to them by their newly engaged counsel also. There is nothing on record to show that the learned Counsel Shri Pati appearing for the contemnors, on the date the order was passed, had intimated about the order to the contemnors and it is specific stand of the contemnors that they were not communicated about the said order. Apart from the above, an objection was also raised by the contemnors stating that the contempt petition is barred by time. The order was passed on 27.6.2000 whereas the contempt petition was filed on 7.1.2004. If it is the case of the petitioner that the order was intimated to the contemnors through their counsel on the date the order was passed, the said contempt petition should have been filed within one year from the date of sale, but the same having been filed on 7.1.2004, is grossly barred by time.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. In the case of Khemchand Agrawal v. Commissioner, Irrigation and Ors. 2004 (Supp.) OLR 151 reported in (2004) 27 OCR 513, this Court held that Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 is to be construed strictly. Section 5 of the Limitation Act regarding condonation of delay is not applicable to a proceeding under the Contempt of Courts Act and, therefore, an application filed for initiation of contempt proceedings after expiry of the period of one year since the cause of action, is held not to be entertainable. We are therefore also of the view that the contempt application is grossly time barred.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Considering the fact that there is an injunction order restraining the contemnors from alienating the property and as a matter of fact there has been alienation of the disputed land, we are of the view that the direction of this Court passed in the contempt application directing the contemnors to deposit the sale' price by way of cheque in this Court and renewing the same from time to time, in the facts and circumstances appears to be justified.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. We, therefore, dispose of this contempt petition directing the contemnors to renew the cheques furnished before the Registry of this Court for a sum of Rs. 2,54,000/- from time to time till disposal of the writ application i.e. O.J.C. No. 5705 of 1999.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">I. Mahanty, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. I agree.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2009(1)OLR41',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Hajuri Prafulla Chandra Khuntia and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Contempt of Court',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '536842'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Banki Muhan Ramachandi Thakurani Vs. Hajuri Prafulla Chandra Khuntia and ors. Semantic Analysis'
$shops = array(
	'LAW' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'Section 20',
		(int) 1 => 'Section 5 of the Limitation Act'
	),
	'PERSON' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'L. Mohapatra',
		(int) 1 => 'J.1',
		(int) 2 => 'Misc',
		(int) 3 => 'Misc',
		(int) 4 => 'Hal Khata No',
		(int) 5 => 'Hal Plot',
		(int) 6 => 'Chandra Rath',
		(int) 7 => 'Misc',
		(int) 8 => 'Misc',
		(int) 9 => 'S. Mishra-II',
		(int) 10 => 'S. Mishra-II',
		(int) 11 => 'Misc',
		(int) 12 => 'Misc',
		(int) 13 => 'Bench',
		(int) 14 => 'Demand Draft/Cheque',
		(int) 15 => 'S. Mishra-II',
		(int) 16 => 'Misc',
		(int) 17 => 'J.7'
	),
	'CARDINAL' => array(
		(int) 0 => '27.6.2000',
		(int) 1 => '5705',
		(int) 2 => '1999.2',
		(int) 3 => '27.6.2000',
		(int) 4 => '27.6.2000',
		(int) 5 => '3.2.2000',
		(int) 6 => '12.5.2000',
		(int) 7 => '2000',
		(int) 8 => '27.6.2000',
		(int) 9 => '27.6.2000',
		(int) 10 => '27.9.2007',
		(int) 11 => '27.6.2000',
		(int) 12 => '27.6.2000',
		(int) 13 => '27.6.2000',
		(int) 14 => '27.6.2000',
		(int) 15 => '7.1.2004',
		(int) 16 => '7.1.2004',
		(int) 17 => '151',
		(int) 18 => '27'
	),
	'DATE' => array(
		(int) 0 => '1555',
		(int) 1 => '2000',
		(int) 2 => '1995',
		(int) 3 => '27.12.2002',
		(int) 4 => '1029',
		(int) 5 => '1030',
		(int) 6 => '1555',
		(int) 7 => 'three days',
		(int) 8 => '1555',
		(int) 9 => 'July, 2000',
		(int) 10 => '14.9.2007',
		(int) 11 => 'the very same day',
		(int) 12 => 'one year',
		(int) 13 => '2004',
		(int) 14 => '2004',
		(int) 15 => '1971',
		(int) 16 => 'the period of one year',
		(int) 17 => '5705'
	),
	'ORG' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'the O.E.A. Collector',
		(int) 1 => 'Board of Revenue',
		(int) 2 => 'Cuttack',
		(int) 3 => 'Court',
		(int) 4 => 'Ac.0.51',
		(int) 5 => 'Court',
		(int) 6 => 'Court',
		(int) 7 => 'Shri N.C.',
		(int) 8 => 'Shri N.C.',
		(int) 9 => 'Court',
		(int) 10 => 'Court',
		(int) 11 => 'Court',
		(int) 12 => 'Shri N.C. Pati',
		(int) 13 => 'Shri N.C.',
		(int) 14 => 'Shri N.C.',
		(int) 15 => 'Shri N.C.',
		(int) 16 => 'Court',
		(int) 17 => 'Counsel Shri Pati',
		(int) 18 => 'Irrigation and Ors',
		(int) 19 => 'Supp',
		(int) 20 => 'Court',
		(int) 21 => 'the Contempt of Courts Act',
		(int) 22 => 'Court',
		(int) 23 => 'Court',
		(int) 24 => 'the Registry of this Court'
	),
	'GPE' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'Puri',
		(int) 1 => 'Khemchand'
	),
	'WORK_OF_ART' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'Shri Ramesh Chandra Rath'
	)
)
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '536842',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => '',
		'appellant' => 'Banki Muhan Ramachandi Thakurani',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Banki Muhan Ramachandi Thakurani Vs. Hajuri Prafulla Chandra Khuntia and ors.',
		'casenote' => ' - Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002], 110 & 104 & Letters Patent, 1865, Clause 10: [Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Letters Patent  Appeal  Order of Single Judge of High Court passed while deciding matters filed under Order 43, Rule1 of C.P.C., -  Held, After introduction of Section 110A in the C.P.C., by 2002 Amendment Act, no Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable against judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge of a High Court. A right of appeal, even though a vested one, can be taken away by law. It is pertinent to note that Section 100-A introduced by 2002 Amendment of the Code starts with a non obstante clause. The purpose of such clause is to give the enacting part of an overriding effect in the case of a conflict with laws mentioned with the non obstante clause. The legislative intention is thus very clear that the law enacted shall have full operation and there would be no impediment. It is well settled that the definition of judgment in Section 2(9) of C.P.C., is much wider and more liberal, Intermediary or interlocutory judgment fall in the category of orders referred to Clause (a) to (w) of Order 43, Rule 1 and also such other orders which poses the characteristic and trapping of finality and may adversely affect a valuable right of a party or decide an important aspect of a trial in an ancillary proceeding. Amended Section 100-A of the Code clearly stipulates that where any appeal from an original or appellate decree or order is heard and decided by a Single Judge of a High Court, no further appeal shall lie. Even otherwise, the word judgment as defined under Section 2(9) means a statement given by a Judge on the grounds of a decree or order. Thus the contention that against an order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal filed under Section 104 C.P.C., a further appeal lies to a Division Bench cannot be accepted. The newly incorporated Section 100A in clear and specific terms prohibits further appeal against the decree and judgment or order of a Single Judge to a Division Bench notwithstanding anything contained in the Letters Patent. The Letters Patent which provides for further appeal to a Division Bench remains intact, but the right to prefer a further appeal is taken away even in respect of the matters arising under the special enactments or other instruments having the force of law be it against original/appellate decree or order heard and decided by a Single Judge. It has to be kept in mind that the special statute only provide for an Appeal to the High Court. It has not made any provision for filing appeal to a Division Bench against the judgment or decree or order of a Single Judge. No Letters Patent Appeal shall lie against a judgment/order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal arising out of a proceeding under a Special Act.

Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002] & 104:[Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Writ Appeal  Held, A Writ Appeal shall lie against judgment/orders passed by Single Judge in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In a writ application filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution, if any order/judgment/decree is passed in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226, a writ appeal will lie. But, no writ appeal will lie against a judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge in exercising powers of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. 
 -  Collector, Puri in Annexure-1 as well as Member, Board of Revenue, Cuttack in O. It is also alleged that the contemnors after receiving the order and being well aware about the direction given by this Court executed the registered sale deed on 27.12.2002 in respect of the disputed plot namely, Hal Khata No. The records of the writ application clearly show that the contemnors engaged Advocates to appear on their behalf.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'Khemchand Agrawal v. Commissioner;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => '',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Orissa',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2008-10-31',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' L. Mohapatra and; I. Mahanty, JJ.',
		'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">L. Mohapatra, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This contempt application has been filed alleging disobedience of the order dated 27.6.2000 passed in Misc. Case No. 1555 of 2000 arising out of O.J.C. No. 5705 of 1999.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The writ application has been filed challenging the order of the O.E.A. Collector, Puri in Annexure-1 as well as Member, Board of Revenue, Cuttack in O.E.A. Revision No. 9 of 1995. In the writ application the above Misc. Case was filed for grant of injunction and by order dated 27.6.2000 this Court considering the nature of dispute restrained the contemnors from alienating the disputed land till disposal of the writ application. In the contempt petition, it is alleged that the said order was passed in presence of learned Counsel appearing for the contemnors and therefore, it is construed to be within the knowledge of the contemnors. It is also alleged that the contemnors after receiving the order and being well aware about the direction given by this Court executed the registered sale deed on 27.12.2002 in respect of the disputed plot namely, Hal Khata No. 450/7, Hal Plot, No. 1029 covering an area of Ac.0.261 decimals corresponding to Sabik Plot No. 409 (R) and Sabik Plot No. 407(P) covering an area of Ac.0.51 decimals corresponding to Hal Plot No. 1030 in total Ac.0.312 decimals. After receipt of notice in the contempt, a reply has been filed by the contemnors. In the said reply it is stated that at the time of execution of the sale deed they were not aware of the order dated 27.6.2000 passed by this Court. Only on 3.2.2000 notices were received by them in the writ application on the question of admission whereafter they engaged Shri Ramesh Chandra Rath, Advocate on their behalf. After receipt of notice in the contempt application, it was found that on 29.2.2000 Shri Ramesh Chandra Rath and Prafulla Kumar Rath, Advocates filed vakalatanama on their behalf and after their appearance, Misc. Case No. 1555 of 2000 was filed by the petitioner but copy was not served. By order dated 12.5.2000 the Court directed to serve a copy of the Misc. Case on the counsel appearing for them with in three days, but the same was not done. In the meantime, the petitioner changed his counsel by engaging late S. Mishra-II by disengaging the previous counsel. After appearance of late S. Mishra-II on behalf of the petitioner, the counsel appearing for the contemnors without disclosing about filing of Misc. Case No. 1555 of 2000 informed them about their unwillingness to conduct the case and gave consent. In July, 2000 the contemnors executed a fresh vakalatnama in favour of Shri N.C. Pati, Advocate to appear on their behalf. Though on 27.6.2000 the said Misc. Case was taken up for orders, it appears that the said order was passed in absence of the learned Counsel appearing for the contemnors and the appearance of Shri N.C. Pati and his associates had not been printed in the cause list as a result of which, they could not appear on the said date. Therefore, it cannot be said that the said order was passed in presence of the learned Counsel appearing for the contemnors. The order dated 27.6.2000 was not intimated to the contemnors. Had they been aware of the said order, they would not have executed the sale deed. In course of hearing of this contempt petition, another Bench of this Court directed the contemnors to deposit the sale price under the sale deed in favour of the Court by way of Demand Draft/Cheque. In pursuance of the said order, a sum of Rs. 2,50,000/- was deposited by way of cheque on 14.9.2007 and further sum of Rs. 4,000/- was undertaken to be deposited by way of cheque. On 27.9.2007 a further sum of Rs. 4,000/- was deposited by way of cheque and it was directed that the cheques shall be renewed from time to time.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The question to be decided in this contempt application is as to whether the contemnors have wilfully and deliberately violated the order passed by this Court on 27.6.2000 by executing a sale deed in spite of the injunction order. The records of the writ application clearly show that the contemnors engaged Advocates to appear on their behalf. After appearance of late S. Mishra-II, Advocate on behalf of the petitioner, the contemnors also changed the counsel and engaged Shri N.C. Pati and his associates to appear on their behalf. The order dated 27.6.2000 shows that on the said date Shri N.C. Pati and his associates filed vakalatnama. Even though their names had not been printed in the cause list on behalf of the contemnors in the writ application, in the Misc. Case the interim order was passed. Therefore, there was no possibility of printing the name of Shri N.C. Pati and his associates in the cause list on 27.6.2000 because they appeared on behalf of the contemnors only on that date. We are therefore unable to accept the contention of the learned Counsel appearing for the contemnors that the order was not passed in the presence of their Advocates since Shri N.C. Pati and his associates filed vakalatnama in Court on the very same day on their behalf in the writ application. The copy of the order had not been communicated as it appears from the office note in the writ application and it is the specific stand of the contemnors that the said order had not been communicated to them by their newly engaged counsel also. There is nothing on record to show that the learned Counsel Shri Pati appearing for the contemnors, on the date the order was passed, had intimated about the order to the contemnors and it is specific stand of the contemnors that they were not communicated about the said order. Apart from the above, an objection was also raised by the contemnors stating that the contempt petition is barred by time. The order was passed on 27.6.2000 whereas the contempt petition was filed on 7.1.2004. If it is the case of the petitioner that the order was intimated to the contemnors through their counsel on the date the order was passed, the said contempt petition should have been filed within one year from the date of sale, but the same having been filed on 7.1.2004, is grossly barred by time.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. In the case of Khemchand Agrawal v. Commissioner, Irrigation and Ors. 2004 (Supp.) OLR 151 reported in (2004) 27 OCR 513, this Court held that Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 is to be construed strictly. Section 5 of the Limitation Act regarding condonation of delay is not applicable to a proceeding under the Contempt of Courts Act and, therefore, an application filed for initiation of contempt proceedings after expiry of the period of one year since the cause of action, is held not to be entertainable. We are therefore also of the view that the contempt application is grossly time barred.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Considering the fact that there is an injunction order restraining the contemnors from alienating the property and as a matter of fact there has been alienation of the disputed land, we are of the view that the direction of this Court passed in the contempt application directing the contemnors to deposit the sale' price by way of cheque in this Court and renewing the same from time to time, in the facts and circumstances appears to be justified.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. We, therefore, dispose of this contempt petition directing the contemnors to renew the cheques furnished before the Registry of this Court for a sum of Rs. 2,54,000/- from time to time till disposal of the writ application i.e. O.J.C. No. 5705 of 1999.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">I. Mahanty, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. I agree.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2009(1)OLR41',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Hajuri Prafulla Chandra Khuntia and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Contempt of Court',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '536842'
)
$pattern = '/\(((0[1-9]|[12][0-9]|3[01])[.](0[1-9]|1[012])[.](17|18|19|20)[0-9]{2}).*\)/'
include - APP/View/Case/meta.ctp, line 36
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

Warning (2): Invalid argument supplied for foreach() [APP/View/Case/meta.ctp, line 39]Code Context//$shops = $shops['entities'];

foreach ($shops2 as $key => $val) {
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/meta.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Banki Muhan Ramachandi Thakurani Vs. Hajuri Prafulla Chandra Khuntia and ors. Semantic Analysis',
	'shops' => array(
		'LAW' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'Section 20',
			(int) 1 => 'Section 5 of the Limitation Act'
		),
		'PERSON' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'L. Mohapatra',
			(int) 1 => 'J.1',
			(int) 2 => 'Misc',
			(int) 3 => 'Misc',
			(int) 4 => 'Hal Khata No',
			(int) 5 => 'Hal Plot',
			(int) 6 => 'Chandra Rath',
			(int) 7 => 'Misc',
			(int) 8 => 'Misc',
			(int) 9 => 'S. Mishra-II',
			(int) 10 => 'S. Mishra-II',
			(int) 11 => 'Misc',
			(int) 12 => 'Misc',
			(int) 13 => 'Bench',
			(int) 14 => 'Demand Draft/Cheque',
			(int) 15 => 'S. Mishra-II',
			(int) 16 => 'Misc',
			(int) 17 => 'J.7'
		),
		'CARDINAL' => array(
			(int) 0 => '27.6.2000',
			(int) 1 => '5705',
			(int) 2 => '1999.2',
			(int) 3 => '27.6.2000',
			(int) 4 => '27.6.2000',
			(int) 5 => '3.2.2000',
			(int) 6 => '12.5.2000',
			(int) 7 => '2000',
			(int) 8 => '27.6.2000',
			(int) 9 => '27.6.2000',
			(int) 10 => '27.9.2007',
			(int) 11 => '27.6.2000',
			(int) 12 => '27.6.2000',
			(int) 13 => '27.6.2000',
			(int) 14 => '27.6.2000',
			(int) 15 => '7.1.2004',
			(int) 16 => '7.1.2004',
			(int) 17 => '151',
			(int) 18 => '27'
		),
		'DATE' => array(
			(int) 0 => '1555',
			(int) 1 => '2000',
			(int) 2 => '1995',
			(int) 3 => '27.12.2002',
			(int) 4 => '1029',
			(int) 5 => '1030',
			(int) 6 => '1555',
			(int) 7 => 'three days',
			(int) 8 => '1555',
			(int) 9 => 'July, 2000',
			(int) 10 => '14.9.2007',
			(int) 11 => 'the very same day',
			(int) 12 => 'one year',
			(int) 13 => '2004',
			(int) 14 => '2004',
			(int) 15 => '1971',
			(int) 16 => 'the period of one year',
			(int) 17 => '5705'
		),
		'ORG' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'the O.E.A. Collector',
			(int) 1 => 'Board of Revenue',
			(int) 2 => 'Cuttack',
			(int) 3 => 'Court',
			(int) 4 => 'Ac.0.51',
			(int) 5 => 'Court',
			(int) 6 => 'Court',
			(int) 7 => 'Shri N.C.',
			(int) 8 => 'Shri N.C.',
			(int) 9 => 'Court',
			(int) 10 => 'Court',
			(int) 11 => 'Court',
			(int) 12 => 'Shri N.C. Pati',
			(int) 13 => 'Shri N.C.',
			(int) 14 => 'Shri N.C.',
			(int) 15 => 'Shri N.C.',
			(int) 16 => 'Court',
			(int) 17 => 'Counsel Shri Pati',
			(int) 18 => 'Irrigation and Ors',
			(int) 19 => 'Supp',
			(int) 20 => 'Court',
			(int) 21 => 'the Contempt of Courts Act',
			(int) 22 => 'Court',
			(int) 23 => 'Court',
			(int) 24 => 'the Registry of this Court'
		),
		'GPE' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'Puri',
			(int) 1 => 'Khemchand'
		),
		'WORK_OF_ART' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'Shri Ramesh Chandra Rath'
		)
	),
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '536842',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => '',
			'appellant' => 'Banki Muhan Ramachandi Thakurani',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Banki Muhan Ramachandi Thakurani Vs. Hajuri Prafulla Chandra Khuntia and ors.',
			'casenote' => ' - Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002], 110 & 104 & Letters Patent, 1865, Clause 10: [Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Letters Patent  Appeal  Order of Single Judge of High Court passed while deciding matters filed under Order 43, Rule1 of C.P.C., -  Held, After introduction of Section 110A in the C.P.C., by 2002 Amendment Act, no Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable against judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge of a High Court. A right of appeal, even though a vested one, can be taken away by law. It is pertinent to note that Section 100-A introduced by 2002 Amendment of the Code starts with a non obstante clause. The purpose of such clause is to give the enacting part of an overriding effect in the case of a conflict with laws mentioned with the non obstante clause. The legislative intention is thus very clear that the law enacted shall have full operation and there would be no impediment. It is well settled that the definition of judgment in Section 2(9) of C.P.C., is much wider and more liberal, Intermediary or interlocutory judgment fall in the category of orders referred to Clause (a) to (w) of Order 43, Rule 1 and also such other orders which poses the characteristic and trapping of finality and may adversely affect a valuable right of a party or decide an important aspect of a trial in an ancillary proceeding. Amended Section 100-A of the Code clearly stipulates that where any appeal from an original or appellate decree or order is heard and decided by a Single Judge of a High Court, no further appeal shall lie. Even otherwise, the word judgment as defined under Section 2(9) means a statement given by a Judge on the grounds of a decree or order. Thus the contention that against an order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal filed under Section 104 C.P.C., a further appeal lies to a Division Bench cannot be accepted. The newly incorporated Section 100A in clear and specific terms prohibits further appeal against the decree and judgment or order of a Single Judge to a Division Bench notwithstanding anything contained in the Letters Patent. The Letters Patent which provides for further appeal to a Division Bench remains intact, but the right to prefer a further appeal is taken away even in respect of the matters arising under the special enactments or other instruments having the force of law be it against original/appellate decree or order heard and decided by a Single Judge. It has to be kept in mind that the special statute only provide for an Appeal to the High Court. It has not made any provision for filing appeal to a Division Bench against the judgment or decree or order of a Single Judge. No Letters Patent Appeal shall lie against a judgment/order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal arising out of a proceeding under a Special Act.

Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002] & 104:[Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Writ Appeal  Held, A Writ Appeal shall lie against judgment/orders passed by Single Judge in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In a writ application filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution, if any order/judgment/decree is passed in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226, a writ appeal will lie. But, no writ appeal will lie against a judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge in exercising powers of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. 
 -  Collector, Puri in Annexure-1 as well as Member, Board of Revenue, Cuttack in O. It is also alleged that the contemnors after receiving the order and being well aware about the direction given by this Court executed the registered sale deed on 27.12.2002 in respect of the disputed plot namely, Hal Khata No. The records of the writ application clearly show that the contemnors engaged Advocates to appear on their behalf.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'Khemchand Agrawal v. Commissioner;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => '',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Orissa',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2008-10-31',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' L. Mohapatra and; I. Mahanty, JJ.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">L. Mohapatra, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This contempt application has been filed alleging disobedience of the order dated 27.6.2000 passed in Misc. Case No. 1555 of 2000 arising out of O.J.C. No. 5705 of 1999.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The writ application has been filed challenging the order of the O.E.A. Collector, Puri in Annexure-1 as well as Member, Board of Revenue, Cuttack in O.E.A. Revision No. 9 of 1995. In the writ application the above Misc. Case was filed for grant of injunction and by order dated 27.6.2000 this Court considering the nature of dispute restrained the contemnors from alienating the disputed land till disposal of the writ application. In the contempt petition, it is alleged that the said order was passed in presence of learned Counsel appearing for the contemnors and therefore, it is construed to be within the knowledge of the contemnors. It is also alleged that the contemnors after receiving the order and being well aware about the direction given by this Court executed the registered sale deed on 27.12.2002 in respect of the disputed plot namely, Hal Khata No. 450/7, Hal Plot, No. 1029 covering an area of Ac.0.261 decimals corresponding to Sabik Plot No. 409 (R) and Sabik Plot No. 407(P) covering an area of Ac.0.51 decimals corresponding to Hal Plot No. 1030 in total Ac.0.312 decimals. After receipt of notice in the contempt, a reply has been filed by the contemnors. In the said reply it is stated that at the time of execution of the sale deed they were not aware of the order dated 27.6.2000 passed by this Court. Only on 3.2.2000 notices were received by them in the writ application on the question of admission whereafter they engaged Shri Ramesh Chandra Rath, Advocate on their behalf. After receipt of notice in the contempt application, it was found that on 29.2.2000 Shri Ramesh Chandra Rath and Prafulla Kumar Rath, Advocates filed vakalatanama on their behalf and after their appearance, Misc. Case No. 1555 of 2000 was filed by the petitioner but copy was not served. By order dated 12.5.2000 the Court directed to serve a copy of the Misc. Case on the counsel appearing for them with in three days, but the same was not done. In the meantime, the petitioner changed his counsel by engaging late S. Mishra-II by disengaging the previous counsel. After appearance of late S. Mishra-II on behalf of the petitioner, the counsel appearing for the contemnors without disclosing about filing of Misc. Case No. 1555 of 2000 informed them about their unwillingness to conduct the case and gave consent. In July, 2000 the contemnors executed a fresh vakalatnama in favour of Shri N.C. Pati, Advocate to appear on their behalf. Though on 27.6.2000 the said Misc. Case was taken up for orders, it appears that the said order was passed in absence of the learned Counsel appearing for the contemnors and the appearance of Shri N.C. Pati and his associates had not been printed in the cause list as a result of which, they could not appear on the said date. Therefore, it cannot be said that the said order was passed in presence of the learned Counsel appearing for the contemnors. The order dated 27.6.2000 was not intimated to the contemnors. Had they been aware of the said order, they would not have executed the sale deed. In course of hearing of this contempt petition, another Bench of this Court directed the contemnors to deposit the sale price under the sale deed in favour of the Court by way of Demand Draft/Cheque. In pursuance of the said order, a sum of Rs. 2,50,000/- was deposited by way of cheque on 14.9.2007 and further sum of Rs. 4,000/- was undertaken to be deposited by way of cheque. On 27.9.2007 a further sum of Rs. 4,000/- was deposited by way of cheque and it was directed that the cheques shall be renewed from time to time.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The question to be decided in this contempt application is as to whether the contemnors have wilfully and deliberately violated the order passed by this Court on 27.6.2000 by executing a sale deed in spite of the injunction order. The records of the writ application clearly show that the contemnors engaged Advocates to appear on their behalf. After appearance of late S. Mishra-II, Advocate on behalf of the petitioner, the contemnors also changed the counsel and engaged Shri N.C. Pati and his associates to appear on their behalf. The order dated 27.6.2000 shows that on the said date Shri N.C. Pati and his associates filed vakalatnama. Even though their names had not been printed in the cause list on behalf of the contemnors in the writ application, in the Misc. Case the interim order was passed. Therefore, there was no possibility of printing the name of Shri N.C. Pati and his associates in the cause list on 27.6.2000 because they appeared on behalf of the contemnors only on that date. We are therefore unable to accept the contention of the learned Counsel appearing for the contemnors that the order was not passed in the presence of their Advocates since Shri N.C. Pati and his associates filed vakalatnama in Court on the very same day on their behalf in the writ application. The copy of the order had not been communicated as it appears from the office note in the writ application and it is the specific stand of the contemnors that the said order had not been communicated to them by their newly engaged counsel also. There is nothing on record to show that the learned Counsel Shri Pati appearing for the contemnors, on the date the order was passed, had intimated about the order to the contemnors and it is specific stand of the contemnors that they were not communicated about the said order. Apart from the above, an objection was also raised by the contemnors stating that the contempt petition is barred by time. The order was passed on 27.6.2000 whereas the contempt petition was filed on 7.1.2004. If it is the case of the petitioner that the order was intimated to the contemnors through their counsel on the date the order was passed, the said contempt petition should have been filed within one year from the date of sale, but the same having been filed on 7.1.2004, is grossly barred by time.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. In the case of Khemchand Agrawal v. Commissioner, Irrigation and Ors. 2004 (Supp.) OLR 151 reported in (2004) 27 OCR 513, this Court held that Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 is to be construed strictly. Section 5 of the Limitation Act regarding condonation of delay is not applicable to a proceeding under the Contempt of Courts Act and, therefore, an application filed for initiation of contempt proceedings after expiry of the period of one year since the cause of action, is held not to be entertainable. We are therefore also of the view that the contempt application is grossly time barred.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Considering the fact that there is an injunction order restraining the contemnors from alienating the property and as a matter of fact there has been alienation of the disputed land, we are of the view that the direction of this Court passed in the contempt application directing the contemnors to deposit the sale' price by way of cheque in this Court and renewing the same from time to time, in the facts and circumstances appears to be justified.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. We, therefore, dispose of this contempt petition directing the contemnors to renew the cheques furnished before the Registry of this Court for a sum of Rs. 2,54,000/- from time to time till disposal of the writ application i.e. O.J.C. No. 5705 of 1999.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">I. Mahanty, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. I agree.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2009(1)OLR41',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Hajuri Prafulla Chandra Khuntia and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Contempt of Court',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '536842'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Banki Muhan Ramachandi Thakurani Vs. Hajuri Prafulla Chandra Khuntia and ors. Semantic Analysis'
$shops = array(
	'LAW' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'Section 20',
		(int) 1 => 'Section 5 of the Limitation Act'
	),
	'PERSON' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'L. Mohapatra',
		(int) 1 => 'J.1',
		(int) 2 => 'Misc',
		(int) 3 => 'Misc',
		(int) 4 => 'Hal Khata No',
		(int) 5 => 'Hal Plot',
		(int) 6 => 'Chandra Rath',
		(int) 7 => 'Misc',
		(int) 8 => 'Misc',
		(int) 9 => 'S. Mishra-II',
		(int) 10 => 'S. Mishra-II',
		(int) 11 => 'Misc',
		(int) 12 => 'Misc',
		(int) 13 => 'Bench',
		(int) 14 => 'Demand Draft/Cheque',
		(int) 15 => 'S. Mishra-II',
		(int) 16 => 'Misc',
		(int) 17 => 'J.7'
	),
	'CARDINAL' => array(
		(int) 0 => '27.6.2000',
		(int) 1 => '5705',
		(int) 2 => '1999.2',
		(int) 3 => '27.6.2000',
		(int) 4 => '27.6.2000',
		(int) 5 => '3.2.2000',
		(int) 6 => '12.5.2000',
		(int) 7 => '2000',
		(int) 8 => '27.6.2000',
		(int) 9 => '27.6.2000',
		(int) 10 => '27.9.2007',
		(int) 11 => '27.6.2000',
		(int) 12 => '27.6.2000',
		(int) 13 => '27.6.2000',
		(int) 14 => '27.6.2000',
		(int) 15 => '7.1.2004',
		(int) 16 => '7.1.2004',
		(int) 17 => '151',
		(int) 18 => '27'
	),
	'DATE' => array(
		(int) 0 => '1555',
		(int) 1 => '2000',
		(int) 2 => '1995',
		(int) 3 => '27.12.2002',
		(int) 4 => '1029',
		(int) 5 => '1030',
		(int) 6 => '1555',
		(int) 7 => 'three days',
		(int) 8 => '1555',
		(int) 9 => 'July, 2000',
		(int) 10 => '14.9.2007',
		(int) 11 => 'the very same day',
		(int) 12 => 'one year',
		(int) 13 => '2004',
		(int) 14 => '2004',
		(int) 15 => '1971',
		(int) 16 => 'the period of one year',
		(int) 17 => '5705'
	),
	'ORG' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'the O.E.A. Collector',
		(int) 1 => 'Board of Revenue',
		(int) 2 => 'Cuttack',
		(int) 3 => 'Court',
		(int) 4 => 'Ac.0.51',
		(int) 5 => 'Court',
		(int) 6 => 'Court',
		(int) 7 => 'Shri N.C.',
		(int) 8 => 'Shri N.C.',
		(int) 9 => 'Court',
		(int) 10 => 'Court',
		(int) 11 => 'Court',
		(int) 12 => 'Shri N.C. Pati',
		(int) 13 => 'Shri N.C.',
		(int) 14 => 'Shri N.C.',
		(int) 15 => 'Shri N.C.',
		(int) 16 => 'Court',
		(int) 17 => 'Counsel Shri Pati',
		(int) 18 => 'Irrigation and Ors',
		(int) 19 => 'Supp',
		(int) 20 => 'Court',
		(int) 21 => 'the Contempt of Courts Act',
		(int) 22 => 'Court',
		(int) 23 => 'Court',
		(int) 24 => 'the Registry of this Court'
	),
	'GPE' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'Puri',
		(int) 1 => 'Khemchand'
	),
	'WORK_OF_ART' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'Shri Ramesh Chandra Rath'
	)
)
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '536842',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => '',
		'appellant' => 'Banki Muhan Ramachandi Thakurani',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Banki Muhan Ramachandi Thakurani Vs. Hajuri Prafulla Chandra Khuntia and ors.',
		'casenote' => ' - Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002], 110 & 104 & Letters Patent, 1865, Clause 10: [Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Letters Patent  Appeal  Order of Single Judge of High Court passed while deciding matters filed under Order 43, Rule1 of C.P.C., -  Held, After introduction of Section 110A in the C.P.C., by 2002 Amendment Act, no Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable against judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge of a High Court. A right of appeal, even though a vested one, can be taken away by law. It is pertinent to note that Section 100-A introduced by 2002 Amendment of the Code starts with a non obstante clause. The purpose of such clause is to give the enacting part of an overriding effect in the case of a conflict with laws mentioned with the non obstante clause. The legislative intention is thus very clear that the law enacted shall have full operation and there would be no impediment. It is well settled that the definition of judgment in Section 2(9) of C.P.C., is much wider and more liberal, Intermediary or interlocutory judgment fall in the category of orders referred to Clause (a) to (w) of Order 43, Rule 1 and also such other orders which poses the characteristic and trapping of finality and may adversely affect a valuable right of a party or decide an important aspect of a trial in an ancillary proceeding. Amended Section 100-A of the Code clearly stipulates that where any appeal from an original or appellate decree or order is heard and decided by a Single Judge of a High Court, no further appeal shall lie. Even otherwise, the word judgment as defined under Section 2(9) means a statement given by a Judge on the grounds of a decree or order. Thus the contention that against an order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal filed under Section 104 C.P.C., a further appeal lies to a Division Bench cannot be accepted. The newly incorporated Section 100A in clear and specific terms prohibits further appeal against the decree and judgment or order of a Single Judge to a Division Bench notwithstanding anything contained in the Letters Patent. The Letters Patent which provides for further appeal to a Division Bench remains intact, but the right to prefer a further appeal is taken away even in respect of the matters arising under the special enactments or other instruments having the force of law be it against original/appellate decree or order heard and decided by a Single Judge. It has to be kept in mind that the special statute only provide for an Appeal to the High Court. It has not made any provision for filing appeal to a Division Bench against the judgment or decree or order of a Single Judge. No Letters Patent Appeal shall lie against a judgment/order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal arising out of a proceeding under a Special Act.

Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002] & 104:[Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Writ Appeal  Held, A Writ Appeal shall lie against judgment/orders passed by Single Judge in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In a writ application filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution, if any order/judgment/decree is passed in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226, a writ appeal will lie. But, no writ appeal will lie against a judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge in exercising powers of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. 
 -  Collector, Puri in Annexure-1 as well as Member, Board of Revenue, Cuttack in O. It is also alleged that the contemnors after receiving the order and being well aware about the direction given by this Court executed the registered sale deed on 27.12.2002 in respect of the disputed plot namely, Hal Khata No. The records of the writ application clearly show that the contemnors engaged Advocates to appear on their behalf.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'Khemchand Agrawal v. Commissioner;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => '',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Orissa',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2008-10-31',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' L. Mohapatra and; I. Mahanty, JJ.',
		'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">L. Mohapatra, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This contempt application has been filed alleging disobedience of the order dated 27.6.2000 passed in Misc. Case No. 1555 of 2000 arising out of O.J.C. No. 5705 of 1999.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The writ application has been filed challenging the order of the O.E.A. Collector, Puri in Annexure-1 as well as Member, Board of Revenue, Cuttack in O.E.A. Revision No. 9 of 1995. In the writ application the above Misc. Case was filed for grant of injunction and by order dated 27.6.2000 this Court considering the nature of dispute restrained the contemnors from alienating the disputed land till disposal of the writ application. In the contempt petition, it is alleged that the said order was passed in presence of learned Counsel appearing for the contemnors and therefore, it is construed to be within the knowledge of the contemnors. It is also alleged that the contemnors after receiving the order and being well aware about the direction given by this Court executed the registered sale deed on 27.12.2002 in respect of the disputed plot namely, Hal Khata No. 450/7, Hal Plot, No. 1029 covering an area of Ac.0.261 decimals corresponding to Sabik Plot No. 409 (R) and Sabik Plot No. 407(P) covering an area of Ac.0.51 decimals corresponding to Hal Plot No. 1030 in total Ac.0.312 decimals. After receipt of notice in the contempt, a reply has been filed by the contemnors. In the said reply it is stated that at the time of execution of the sale deed they were not aware of the order dated 27.6.2000 passed by this Court. Only on 3.2.2000 notices were received by them in the writ application on the question of admission whereafter they engaged Shri Ramesh Chandra Rath, Advocate on their behalf. After receipt of notice in the contempt application, it was found that on 29.2.2000 Shri Ramesh Chandra Rath and Prafulla Kumar Rath, Advocates filed vakalatanama on their behalf and after their appearance, Misc. Case No. 1555 of 2000 was filed by the petitioner but copy was not served. By order dated 12.5.2000 the Court directed to serve a copy of the Misc. Case on the counsel appearing for them with in three days, but the same was not done. In the meantime, the petitioner changed his counsel by engaging late S. Mishra-II by disengaging the previous counsel. After appearance of late S. Mishra-II on behalf of the petitioner, the counsel appearing for the contemnors without disclosing about filing of Misc. Case No. 1555 of 2000 informed them about their unwillingness to conduct the case and gave consent. In July, 2000 the contemnors executed a fresh vakalatnama in favour of Shri N.C. Pati, Advocate to appear on their behalf. Though on 27.6.2000 the said Misc. Case was taken up for orders, it appears that the said order was passed in absence of the learned Counsel appearing for the contemnors and the appearance of Shri N.C. Pati and his associates had not been printed in the cause list as a result of which, they could not appear on the said date. Therefore, it cannot be said that the said order was passed in presence of the learned Counsel appearing for the contemnors. The order dated 27.6.2000 was not intimated to the contemnors. Had they been aware of the said order, they would not have executed the sale deed. In course of hearing of this contempt petition, another Bench of this Court directed the contemnors to deposit the sale price under the sale deed in favour of the Court by way of Demand Draft/Cheque. In pursuance of the said order, a sum of Rs. 2,50,000/- was deposited by way of cheque on 14.9.2007 and further sum of Rs. 4,000/- was undertaken to be deposited by way of cheque. On 27.9.2007 a further sum of Rs. 4,000/- was deposited by way of cheque and it was directed that the cheques shall be renewed from time to time.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The question to be decided in this contempt application is as to whether the contemnors have wilfully and deliberately violated the order passed by this Court on 27.6.2000 by executing a sale deed in spite of the injunction order. The records of the writ application clearly show that the contemnors engaged Advocates to appear on their behalf. After appearance of late S. Mishra-II, Advocate on behalf of the petitioner, the contemnors also changed the counsel and engaged Shri N.C. Pati and his associates to appear on their behalf. The order dated 27.6.2000 shows that on the said date Shri N.C. Pati and his associates filed vakalatnama. Even though their names had not been printed in the cause list on behalf of the contemnors in the writ application, in the Misc. Case the interim order was passed. Therefore, there was no possibility of printing the name of Shri N.C. Pati and his associates in the cause list on 27.6.2000 because they appeared on behalf of the contemnors only on that date. We are therefore unable to accept the contention of the learned Counsel appearing for the contemnors that the order was not passed in the presence of their Advocates since Shri N.C. Pati and his associates filed vakalatnama in Court on the very same day on their behalf in the writ application. The copy of the order had not been communicated as it appears from the office note in the writ application and it is the specific stand of the contemnors that the said order had not been communicated to them by their newly engaged counsel also. There is nothing on record to show that the learned Counsel Shri Pati appearing for the contemnors, on the date the order was passed, had intimated about the order to the contemnors and it is specific stand of the contemnors that they were not communicated about the said order. Apart from the above, an objection was also raised by the contemnors stating that the contempt petition is barred by time. The order was passed on 27.6.2000 whereas the contempt petition was filed on 7.1.2004. If it is the case of the petitioner that the order was intimated to the contemnors through their counsel on the date the order was passed, the said contempt petition should have been filed within one year from the date of sale, but the same having been filed on 7.1.2004, is grossly barred by time.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. In the case of Khemchand Agrawal v. Commissioner, Irrigation and Ors. 2004 (Supp.) OLR 151 reported in (2004) 27 OCR 513, this Court held that Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 is to be construed strictly. Section 5 of the Limitation Act regarding condonation of delay is not applicable to a proceeding under the Contempt of Courts Act and, therefore, an application filed for initiation of contempt proceedings after expiry of the period of one year since the cause of action, is held not to be entertainable. We are therefore also of the view that the contempt application is grossly time barred.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Considering the fact that there is an injunction order restraining the contemnors from alienating the property and as a matter of fact there has been alienation of the disputed land, we are of the view that the direction of this Court passed in the contempt application directing the contemnors to deposit the sale' price by way of cheque in this Court and renewing the same from time to time, in the facts and circumstances appears to be justified.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. We, therefore, dispose of this contempt petition directing the contemnors to renew the cheques furnished before the Registry of this Court for a sum of Rs. 2,54,000/- from time to time till disposal of the writ application i.e. O.J.C. No. 5705 of 1999.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">I. Mahanty, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. I agree.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2009(1)OLR41',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Hajuri Prafulla Chandra Khuntia and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Contempt of Court',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '536842'
)
$pattern = '/\(((0[1-9]|[12][0-9]|3[01])[.](0[1-9]|1[012])[.](17|18|19|20)[0-9]{2}).*\)/'
$shops2 = null
include - APP/View/Case/meta.ctp, line 39
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

LAW: Section 20, Section 5 of the Limitation Act

PERSON: L. Mohapatra, J.1, Misc, Misc, Hal Khata No, Hal Plot, Chandra Rath, Misc, Misc, S. Mishra-II, S. Mishra-II, Misc, Misc, Bench, Demand Draft/Cheque, S. Mishra-II, Misc, J.7

CARDINAL: 27.6.2000, 5705, 1999.2, 27.6.2000, 27.6.2000, 3.2.2000, 12.5.2000, 2000, 27.6.2000, 27.6.2000, 27.9.2007, 27.6.2000, 27.6.2000, 27.6.2000, 27.6.2000, 7.1.2004, 7.1.2004, 151, 27

DATE: 1555, 2000, 1995, 27.12.2002, 1029, 1030, 1555, three days, 1555, July, 2000, 14.9.2007, the very same day, one year, 2004, 2004, 1971, the period of one year, 5705

ORG: the O.E.A. Collector, Board of Revenue, Cuttack, Court, Ac.0.51, Court, Court, Shri N.C., Shri N.C., Court, Court, Court, Shri N.C. Pati, Shri N.C., Shri N.C., Shri N.C., Court, Counsel Shri Pati, Irrigation and Ors, Supp, Court, the Contempt of Courts Act, Court, Court, the Registry of this Court

GPE: Puri, Khemchand

WORK_OF_ART: Shri Ramesh Chandra Rath