Orissa Court November 1978 Judgments
Sreedhar Pani and ors. Vs. State of Orissa and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Nov-17-1978
Reported in: AIR1979Ori55; 47(1979)CLT98
ORDERP.K. Mohanti, J.1. This revisional application is directed against an order allowimg an application under Order 1, Rule 10 Code of Civil Procedure filed by opposite parties 4 to 16 for being impleaded as defendants in the suit.2. The petitioners as plaintiffs brought Title Suit. No. 7 of 1977 against opposite parties 1 to 3 for declaration of title to the suit land and for a permanent injunction restraining them from interfering with their possession. It was alleged that by the alluvial action of the river Paika there was accretion to the rayati holding of the plaintiffs to an extent of 17 acres and the plaintiffs are entitled to the accreted land as an increment to their tenure. Opposite parties 4 to 16 filed an application under Order 1, Rule 10 Code of Civil Procedure for being impleaded as parties to the suit alleging that they had taken temporary lease of the suit land from the Tahasildar, Kujang and after expiry of the lease they have been continuing in possession of the lan...
Tag this Judgment!Salicharan Bisi Vs. Sukanti Pujhari and anr.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Nov-17-1978
Reported in: AIR1979Ori78; 47(1979)CLT177
ORDERP.K. Mohanti, J.1. This Civil revision is directed against an order refusing leave to amend the written statement.2. Opposite party No. 1 filed Title Suit No. 7 of 1974 in the Court of Subordinate Judge, Sonepur for a declaration that the petitioner is not his adopted son and that the adoption, if any, is invalid. Although no relief for declaration of title or recovery of possession was sought for, a passing reference was made in the body of the plaint that the defendants had no right, title or possession over the lands described in the plaint schedule and that the petitioner fraudulently got his name recorded in the settlement record of rights as the adopted son of the opposite party No. 1.3. Petitioner filed written statement asserting that he was the adopted son of the opposite party and that at the time of his adoption, his natural father Mrutunjaya had gifted away the suit lands to him and had got the same recorded in his name.4. The plaint was presented on the 12th March, 19...
Tag this Judgment!Rabindra Nath Mohanty and ors. Vs. State Transport Appellate Tribunal ...
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Nov-15-1978
Reported in: AIR1979Ori133
S.K. Ray, C.J. 1. All these three applications have been heard analogously as they involve identical questions of law. Opposite parties 1 and 2 in each of these writ applications are respectively State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Orissa, and State Transport Authority. The petitioners have prayed for issuance of a writ of certiorari to quash Annexure-2, which is the impugned proceeding of opposite party No. 2 dated 22-2-1975 by which their applications for grant of endorsement under Rule 3 (1) of the Orissa Tourist Vehicles Rules, 1967 (hereinafter called the 'Rules') have been rejected. The consequential intimation of this order of rejection to the petitioners which is Annexure-3, and the judgment and order of opposite party No. 1 dated 15-4-76 by which M.V. Appeal No. 15 of 1975 preferred by the petitioner in O.J.C. No. 381 of 1976, M.V. Appeal No. 16 of 1975 preferred by the petitioner in O.J.C. No. 382 of 1976 and M.V. Appeal No. 17 of 1975 preferred by the petitioner in O. J. C. ...
Tag this Judgment!Arda Murari and anr. Vs. State of Orissa and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Nov-02-1978
Reported in: AIR1979Ori58; 47(1979)CLT1
R.N. Misra, J.1. Both the applications seek to quash proceedings taken under the Orissa Land Reforms Act for determination of ceiling surplus lands. Arda Juria died around 1961 leaving behind his widow (petitioner 5n O.J.C. No. 459 of 1978) and a son (petitioner in O.J.C. No. 458 of 1978) and a total area of about seventeen acres of land. After the mother and son lived together for some time, disputes arose between the mother and her daughter-in-law and petitioners maintain that on 10th of March, 1968 they effected an amicable partition in terms of Annexure-1. A suo motu proceeding was initiated under Section 42 of the Orissa Land Reforms Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') for determining ceiling surplus lands and the draft statement was published on 30-11-1974. Petitioners maintain relying upon the order-sheet (Annexure-6) that by 31-12-1974, service return of the notice of publication of the draft statement had not been received. The Revenue Officer, therefore, ordered:--'......
Tag this Judgment!Harikishandas Bajoria and anr. Vs. E.i.D. Parry Ltd. and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Nov-02-1978
Reported in: AIR1979Ori80
R.N. Misra, J.1. Defendants 1 and 2in Title Suit No. 53 of 1974 have carried this revision application against the ordei of the learned Trial Judge finding the suit under Order 21, Rule 63 of the Civil P. C. to be within the period of limitation, the issue relating to limitation having been adjudicated as a preliminary one. When the revision application was placed before one of us for hearing, it was directed to be placed before a Division Bench for final disposal.2. On 13-5-1970, plaintiff (opposite party No. 1) filed Money Suit No. 339 of 1970 in the court of the Subordinate Judge at Cuttack for recovery of the dues on promissory notes executed by opposite parties 2 to 5 and obtained an ex parte ad interim order of attachment before judgment. Petitioners had purchased a house from opposite parties 3 to 5 under a registered sale deed dated 20th of March, 1970, for valuable consideration and when they found that the order of attachment covered this property also, they asked for lifting...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›