Orissa Court September 1968 Judgments
Anama Rout and ors. Vs. Trilochan Das
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Sep-17-1968
Reported in: AIR1969Ori75; 34(1968)CLT1250; 1969CriLJ504
ORDERS. Acharya, J.1. This revision is against the appellate judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Cuttack in Criminal Appeal No. 22 C of 1965 confirming the convictions and sentences of the petitioners under Sections 379 and 426 I. P. C., while setting aside their conviction and sentence under Section 504 I. P. C. passed by a Magistrate 1st Class, Cuttack.2. The prosecution case, in short, is that on 26-6-1964, at about 8 A. M. the petitioners cut the green fence standing on the eastern boundry of the complainant's plot No. 31 in Khata No. 1 of mouza Dhusal. Thereafter, they carried away some cowdung stored on the complainant's land and also removed some Alu and Olua from the said land.3. The petitioners in pleading not guilty to the charges urged that there was no fence in between the complainant's land and the paddy land of the petitioner No. 1, and that on the date of oc-currence, the petitioner No. 1 was cutting the branch of a Chakunda tree standing on his own land, but as h...
Tag this Judgment!Soubhagya Chandra Patnaik Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Represented by Chie ...
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Sep-16-1968
Reported in: AIR1969Ori169; 34(1968)CLT1404; 1969CriLJ930
Barman C.J. 1. The petitioner -- a Jawan cadet in the 54 A. D. Battery, 19 Air Defence Regiment of the Indian Army at present in Cuttack Jail -- challenges the order dated August 8, 1967 of the Lt. Colonel Commanding 19 Air Force Regiment, by which the petitioner was awarded six months' rigorous imprisonment and was also dismissed from service, stated to have been passed after trial by a Summary Court-Martial in the said Unit, on a charge of having committed the offence of, without sufficient cause, overstaying the leave granted to him, under Section 39(b) of the Indian Army Act, 1950 (Central Act 46 of 1950). 2. On March 2, 1967 the petitioner was granted leave for two months with effect from that date and was permitted to proceed to his village to avail of the leave. While on leave, the petitioner is said to have fallen ill from April 29, 1967 and is stated to have been in a delirious condition until May 3, 1967. He got a medical certificate from the Government Hospital at Delang in ...
Tag this Judgment!Rameswarlal Vs. Panchu Sahu and anr.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Sep-13-1968
Reported in: AIR1969Ori116; 35(1969)CLT150
ORDERS. Barman, C.J. 1. The plaintiff is the petitioner in revision against an order of the learned Mun-sif, Khurda, by which he allowed the application of a third party being Opposite Party No. 2 Gagan Behari Patnaik for being im-pleaded as a defendant in a rent suit.2. Tills revision arises out of a suit filed by the plaintiff for recovery of rent from the defendant-opposite party No. 1 Panchu Sahu. Before the written statement was filed by the defendant-opposite party No. 1 Panchu Sahu, the opposite party No. 2 Gagan Behari Patnaik made an application to be impleaded as a party claiming that he is the owner of the suit property in respect of which the plaintiff had filed the suit for recovery of rent from opposite party No. 1 Panchu Sahu.3. The question is : Can this simple suit for rent be converted into a suit for title by adding Opposite Party No. 2 Gagan Behari Patnaik? It is not that under no circumstances such application should be allowed. In the present case, opposite party ...
Tag this Judgment!Krushna Chandra Tripathy and anr. Vs. Lokanath Mohapatra and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Sep-13-1968
Reported in: AIR1969Ori140
ORDERG.K. Misra, J.1. Plaintiffs' case is that they were occupancy raiyats of the disputed lands, under defendants 1 to 6 who were Tanki Baheldars (tenure-holders). The tenure vested in the State of Orissa under the Orissa Estates Abolition Act in 1963. The plaintiffs are therefore occupancy raiyats under the State. Despite this averment the plaintiffs however valued the suit on the footing that it was a suit between the tenants and their landlords defendants 1 to 6. The defendants asserted that the market value of the disputed lands would be about Rs. 30,000, and the Munsif's court, Puri having jurisdiction to try suits upto the value of Rs. 4,000 had no jurisdiction to try the suit. The learned Munsif determined the question of valuation as a preliminary issue and held that the market value of the lands is about Rs. 10,000 and that he had no jurisdiction to try the suit. He accordingly directed return of the plaint under Order 7, Rule 10 C. P. C. The learned Subordinate Judge dismiss...
Tag this Judgment!Municipal Council Vs. Pramod Kishore Das
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Sep-12-1968
Reported in: AIR1969Ori284; 34(1968)CLT1180
ORDERG.K. Misra, J.1. It is not necessary to state the detailed facts regarding the respective cases of the parties. The plaintiff's suit was for recovery of the Jeep and the new spare parts supplied for repairs and for other reliefs. On 14-11-67 the defendant filed written statement denying his liability. On 15-4-68 the suit was fixed for hearing in the Court of the First Additional Subordinate Judge, Cuttack. The plaintiff applied for time which was rejected. He accordingly got ready and filed hazira. The defendant did not appear despite repeated calls. He was set ex parte and the suit was heard ex parte. One of the employees of the municipality was examined in support of the plaintiff's case. The suit was posted to 16-4-68 for judgment.On 16-4-68 the judgment was not pronounced as the Judge was absent on leave and the suit was adjourned to 17-4-68 for judgment. On that day the defendant filed an application for recalling the ex parte order passed on 15-4-68 on the allegation that th...
Tag this Judgment!G. Pannalal Sowcar Vs. Appalabhukatala Sanyasayya Achary
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Sep-11-1968
Reported in: AIR1969Ori147; 35(1969)CLT181
G.K. Misra, J. 1. The decree-holder obtained a money decree in the Court of the Munsif, Vizianagaram on 4-10-52. It was confirmed in appeal on 31-8-53. On 20-4-54, E. P. No. 480 of 1954 was filed in theCourt of the Munsif, Vizianagram. On 28-6-54 a non-satisfaction certificate was issued by the Munsif, Vizianagram to the Munsif, Jeypore, through the District Judge. On 23-9-54, E. P. No. 147 of 1954 was filed before the Munsif, Jeypore. On 17-4-58 the execution proceeding was closed on part satisfaction. This result was communicated to the Munsif, Vizianagram on 25-4-1958. On 17-10-60, E. P. No. 105 of 1960 was filed in the Munsifs Court, Jeypore. On 11-11-60 the execution proceeding was dismissed as not maintainable. On 16-7-1963, E. P. No. 1179 of 1963 was filed in the Munsif's Court, Vizianagram. That Court sent a non-satisfaction certificate to the Munsif, Jeypore on 3-1-1964. The certificate was received on 8-1-64. E. P. No. 74/94 of 1964/65 was filed on 8-7-64. Two objections were...
Tag this Judgment!Mayadhar Misra Vs. Pramod Chandra Misra and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Sep-10-1968
Reported in: AIR1969Ori144; 35(1969)CLT287
G.K. Misra, J.1. Mayadhar Misra (Appellant), Nagendranalh Misra and Krishna Chandra Misra are three brothers. Pramod Chandra Misra (respondent No. 1) minor is the natural born son of Krishna Chandra Misra and claims to be the adopted son of deceased Nagendranath Misra whose widow is Rajani Dibya (respondent No. 2). The three brothers executed a mortgage bond in favour of the Cuttack Bank Ltd., (respondent no 3). On 23-6-53 there was a registered partition deed amongst the three brothers whereby it was agreed that Krishna Chandra Misra would pay up all the joint family debts of which the aforesaid mortgage bond was one. As there was no payment, Cuttack Bank filed Mortgage Suit No. 229 of 1959 in the Court of the Munsif, Second Court, Cuttack, against the aforesaid three mortgagors and obtained a decree.Execution Case No. 53 of 1960 was filed against Mayadhar Misra, Rajani Dibya and Krishna Chandra Misra in respect of a claim of Rs. 1245. The property was put to sale in execution of the ...
Tag this Judgment!Binod Naik and anr. Vs. Chandrasekhar Padhi and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Sep-10-1968
Reported in: AIR1969Ori134; 34(1968)CLT1305
G.K. Misra, J.1. Kalu Rana (defendant No. 1) had two sons Gangadhar (defendant No. 2) and Banchhanidhi (defendant No. 3) and a daughter Chandra who was implead-ed as respondent No. 1 (b) in the lower appellate Court, His wits Pata was also impleaded as respondent No. 1 (a) in the lower appellate Court. The plaintiff purchased the disputed land from defendant No. 1 by a registered sale deed Ext. 2 on 9-4-43 for Rs. 1200. Defendant No. 4 purchased 2/3rds of the suit land from defendants 2 and 3 by a registered sale deed Ext. A on 29-8-1943 for Rs. 880. The plaintiff's case is that the disputed land was the ancestral property of the family of Kalu and the sale was for legal necessity and antecedent debts made by Kalu as the Karta of the family. The subsequent sale Ext. A by defendants 2 and 3 is not valid as they had no further subsisting interest. The suit is also for recovery of possession.The learned trial Court held that the suit land was the joint family property, but by the date of ...
Tag this Judgment!Abodha Kumar Mohapatra and ors. Vs. State of Orissa and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Sep-06-1968
Reported in: AIR1969Ori80
Barman, C.J. 1. In these writ petitions analogously heard some student candidates including two lady students -- as applicants for admission during the Medical Colleges in Orissa during theyear 1968 relying on a Notice dated June 22, 1968 issued by the Principal, S. C. B. Medical College, Cuttack and published in the Orissa Gazette dated June 28, 1968, fixing the criteria for determination of merit of candidates eligible for selection and inviting applications for admission to the Medical Colleges -- challenge the legality of the letter dated August 14, 1968 issued by the Government of Orissa in the Department of Health and Family Planning. It is said that by this impugned letter the Government issued certain executive instructions which had the effect of eliminating many otherwise qualified candidates by a process of unreasonable discrimination, regionwise selection of candidates, and making special provisions for lady students retrospectively thereby altering, to the detriment of the...
Tag this Judgment!Uchhab Patra Vs. Brundaban Mallik
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Sep-03-1968
Reported in: AIR1969Ori142; 35(1969)CLT86
G.K. Misra, J.1. 0.37 acre of land of plot No. 298 appertaining to Khata No. 63 in village Nuagada in the district of Puri belonged to one Brundaban Padhan. The respondent, Brunduban Malik trespassed upon this land and forcibly possessed 0.31 acre out of it. Brundaban Padhan filed Money Suit No. 330 of 1960 in the Court of Munsiff Puri for recovery of damages of Rupees 219 from the respondent. During the pendency of the suit, Brundaban Padhan transferred the land along with the right of realisation of Rs. 219 representing the claim for damages by a registered sale deed dated 27-5-61 in favour of Uehhab Patra (appellant). The appellant did not get himself substituted in place of Brunda-ban Fadhan in the suit under Order 22, Rule 10 of the Civil P. C. The suit was accordingly decreed in favour of Brundaban Padhan on 12-10-61. The appellant-transferee filed Execution Case No. 43 of 1966 for realisation of the decretal dues against the respondent who filed an objection under Section 47 of ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »