Orissa Court February 1978 Judgments
Nrusingha Charan Prusti Vs. Ratikanta Mohanty
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Feb-28-1978
Reported in: AIR1978Ori217; 45(1978)CLT502
ORDERK.B. Panda, J.1. This civil revision arises in the following circumstances: One Nrusingha Charan Prusti took lease of a house on the strength of Ext. 2 on 15-3-1966 on a monthly rent of Rs. 45/- from one Duryodhan Mohanty who posed himself as the landlord in respect of that house. This Duryodhan also received a sum of Rs. 540/- in advance from the tenant Nrusingha who is the petitioner in this civil revision. As it appears, Nrusingha subsequently realised that Duryodhan was not the real landlord in respect of the house, but it was Adwait, his full brother. So Nrusingha obtained a sale deed in the name of his wife on 29-7-1966 from Adwaita and thereafter refused payment of rent to Duryodhan. Nrusingha further filed a Money Suit No. 22 of 1968 claiming the advance of Rs. 540/- paid to Duryodhan with twelve per cent interest as damages. This suit was decreed in his favour by the Munsif, Baripada on 6-12-1975 with six per cent interest as damages over the advance of Rs. 540/-. Consequ...
Tag this Judgment!Maguni Dei Vs. Gouranga Sahu and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Feb-27-1978
Reported in: AIR1978Ori228; 45(1978)CLT356
P.K. Mohanti, J.1. This civil revision raises a point of considerable importance concerning the litigants and the legal practitioners frequently in trials before the subordinate courts. The question whether a party who has not examined himself as the first witness in support of his cause and has not obtained permission of the court to appear as such witness at a later stage as required under Order 18, Rule 3-A, C.P.C., as amended by the Civil P. C. (Amendment) Act, 1976, can be examined at a later stage of the trial is the sole point for determination.2. The amended rule runs thus:--'Where a party himself wishes to appear as a witness, he shall so appear before any other witness on his behalf has been examined unless the Court, for reasons to be recorded, permits him to appear as his own witness at a later stage.'3. The brief facts in the present matter are these:Opposite party No. 1 filed Title Suit No. 103 of 1974 against the petitioner and some others for declaration of title and re...
Tag this Judgment!Sri Bhagabat Basudev and anr. Vs. Ajodhya Das and anr.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Feb-23-1978
Reported in: AIR1978Ori194; 45(1978)CLT539
S. Acharya, J. 1. The plaintiffs have preferred this appeal against the confirming decision of the court below. The suit was for declaration of title and confirmation of possession in respect of a house in Puri town described in lot No. 1 of the plaint schedule and some lands situated in village Rebana Nuagan described in lot No. 2 of the plaint schedule, and for other consequential reliefs.2. Admittedly Nitei Dasi was the owner of the suit properties.3. According to the plaintiffs:--The said Nitei Dasi endowed the suit properties in favour of plaintiff No. 1, a deity installed by her in her house, and after the said endowment she, as the Marfatdar of the deity, was in management of the suit properties and was performing the Sebapuja of that deity. Subsequently on 11-5-63 she made a gift (Ext. 4) of the suit properties in favour of plaintiff No. 2 and appointed him as the Marfatdar of the deity. Thereafter plaintiff No. 2 possessed the suit properties as the Marfatdar of plaintiff No. ...
Tag this Judgment!Hara Satnami Vs. Dhaneswar Putel and anr.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Feb-23-1978
Reported in: AIR1978Ori218; 45(1978)CLT431
S. Acharya, J.1. The appellant filed a petition in the court below under Order 33, Rule 1, C. P. C. to allow him to prosecute his suit as an indigent person. That petition was dismissed by the impugned order and hence this appeal.2. The court, as I find from the impugned order, has rejected the aforesaid petition of the appellant mostly on the consideration that his 'natural faher, who is representing the minor plaintiff-petitioner in the suit as his next friend, has Ac. 8.29 decimals of land.3. In dealing with a matter of this nature the financial capacity of the plaintiff himself, and not his next friend or near relations, is to be considered. In this connection, the decision reported in AIR 1929 Lah 746 (2) (Sharan Singh v. Mt. Man Kaur); AIR 1946 Lah 81 (Mohammad Ashraf v. Muhammad Bibi); AIR 1970 Delhi 81, (Kewal Krishan v. Khazan Singh) be seen.In the case reported in (1881) ILR 3 Mad 3 (Venkatnarasayya v. Achemma) it has been held that--'There is no rule which requires that the ...
Tag this Judgment!Prag Oil Mills Depot Vs. Transport Corporation of India and anr.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Feb-20-1978
Reported in: AIR1978Ori167; 46(1978)CLT89
S. Acharya, J.1. The plaintiff has preferred this appeal.2. The plaintiff is a registered partnership firm carrying on business at Cut-tack with its head office at Aligarh. Defendant No. 1 is a common carrier who carries on business of transporting goods on hire or on payment of freight. Defendant No. 2 is the Cuttack branch of defendant No. 1. One M/s. Jethmal Ramkumar of Ranchi despatched 14 cases of washing soap through the defendants under receipt No. 9967 dated 27-5-71 for delivery of the same to the plaintiff at Cuttack. The plaintiff paid Rs. 93.30, the freight for transporting the said washing soap, to defendant No. 2 under money receipt No. 44621 on 11-6-71. Soon thereafter the plaintiff's man went to the godown of defendant No. 2 to take delivery of the said consignment. The facts stated so far are not disputed.3. The plaintiff's case in short is that in the defendant's godown the plaintiff's man found some of the packing cases in completely broken condition and a substantial...
Tag this Judgment!iswar Chandra Mohanty Vs. Ramnik Lal
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Feb-20-1978
Reported in: AIR1978Ori156; 45(1978)CLT447
S. Acharya, J. 1. The defendant has preferred this appeal against the reversing decision of the court below. The plaintiff's suit is, for recovery of Rs. 1900/-from the defendant.2. According to the plaintiff, the defendant was In friendly relation with the plaintiff. On 10-8-68 the defendant, being in need of money, approached the plaintiff to give him Rs. 1900/- on loan promising to repay that amount within two months. The plaintiff gave that amount to the defendant as requested, and the defendant executed the receipt Ext. 1 in favour of the plaintiff on receiving the said amount. But as he did not repay the amount as promised the plaintiff instituted this suit.3. The defendant's case Js that he did not take the aforesaid amount from the plaintiff, nor did he execute any receipt In favour of the plaintiff acknowledging payment of the said amount to him by the plaintiff.4. The trial court dismissed the plaintiff's suit on the finding that the plaintiff could not establish that he gave...
Tag this Judgment!Arjuna Padhan Vs. Surendranath Satpathy and anr.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Feb-13-1978
Reported in: AIR1978Ori175; 46(1978)CLT351
S. Acharya, J.1. The plaintiff in Title Suit No. 50 of 1967 has preferred this appeal against the judgment of the court below confirming the decision of the trial court dismissing the plaintiff's suit.2. The suit was for issuing a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from entering upon the suit property described in the schedule attached to the plaint and also from interfering in any manner with the possession of the plaintiff over the suit property.3. In view of the question involved and the decision I am going to take in this appeal it is not necessary for me to deal with the respective cases of both the parties,4. The suit was posted for hearing on 18-9-72. On one or two previous dates the court had adjourned the hearing of the case on the petition of the plaintiff, but on those dates some documents on behalf of the defendants were filed and were marked as exhibits as formal proof thereof was dispensed with. On 18-9-72 the advocate for the plaintiff applied for time on th...
Tag this Judgment!Tata Iron and Steel Co. Ltd. Vs. Rajarishi Exports (P) Ltd.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Feb-06-1978
Reported in: 45(1978)CLT421
ORDERS. Acharya, J.1. The petitioner is the sole defendant in Money Suit No. 84 of 1976 pending in the court of the Subordinate Judge, Jajpur. The opposite party's suit is for recovery of Rs. 11,77,090/- with pendente lite and future interest and the costof the suit. The said amount is claimed on the basis of certain allegations made in the plaint based on alleged contracts between the plaintiff and the defendant. In the suit the defendant filed a petition under Order 11, Rule 1 C.P.C. praying for an order of the court directing the plaintiff to answer in writing the interrogatories filed by the defendant. The plaintiff filed its answer to the said interrogatories without waiting for any order of the court to that effect. Thereafter the defendant filed a petition under Order 11, Rule 11, C.P.C. alleging that the answer to the above-mentioned interrogatories furnished by the plaintiff were incomplete, insufficient and/or ambiguous and that the plaintiff had incorporated irrelevant mater...
Tag this Judgment!Nrusingh Charan Nayak Vs. Smt. Hemant Kumari Nayak
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Feb-06-1978
Reported in: AIR1978Ori163; 45(1978)CLT558
1. This appeal has been carried by the defendant-husband against the decree of the learned Subordinate Judge allowing the wife's claim for restitution of conjugal rights. The application under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') which was registered as a suit was not valued, but the appellant has valued the appeal at Rs. 100/- and has paid court-fee of Rs. 22.50 on the memorandum of appeal.2. Counsel for the respondent raised objection to the maintainability of the appeal in this Court in view of the disclosed valuation in the memorandum of appeal and pressed for an order to that effect being passed. Mr. Patra for the appellant, however, does not accept the objection and contends that the appeal lay to this Court.3. Section 9 of the Act provides that the application for restitution of conjugal rights has to be made to the District Court. District Court has been defined in Section 3 (b) of the Act to mean--'... ... ... in any area for which there i...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›