Orissa Court August 1984 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Satyanarayan Mohapatra Vs. Prafulla Kumar Patnaik and Three ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Aug-22-1984
Reported in: 58(1984)CLT396; 1984(II)OLR1101
B.K. Behera, J. 1. The appellant, who was the complainant in Court below, assails the order, dated June 27,1980, passed by the learned Subdivision Judicial Magistrate, Sonapur, acquitting the respondents, who were the accused persons in a case under Section 323 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, because of non-appearance of the appellant and his witnesses, by applying Section 256(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. I have heard Mr. M. R. Mohanty for the appellant and Mr. G. S. Das for the respondents, Mr. Mohanty has submitted that the appellant had absented himself for reasons beyond his control and the learned Subdivision! Judicial Magistrate did not exercise his judicial discretion properly and passed an order under Section 256(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure arbitrarily. Mr. C. S. Das, however, has submitted that as neither the appellant appeared nor any witness was produced, the learned Sub divisional Judicial Magistrate did not choose to adjourn the case and it...
Raita Munda Vs. State of Orissa
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Aug-20-1984
Reported in: 1985CriLJ52
Pathak, C.J.1. This appeal from jail is projected against the judgment and order of the learned Sessions Judge, Sambalpur, dated 15-11-80 convicting the appellant Under Section 302, I.P.C for intentionally causing the death of his wife Shakuntala and sentencing him thereunder to R.I. for life.2. A brief narration of the prosecution case is that at about 10 p.m. on 14-8-79 the appellant intentionally caused the death of his wife Shakuntala Munda. It is found from the narration of the prosecution case that after the demise of his first wife, the appellant took Shakuntala for his second wife. The first wife had left behind her two sons, one being P.W. 10 and the other son having been taken in adoption by the appellant's father-in-law. On the date of occurrence, at about evening there was a quarrel between the appellant and the deceased and the bickering was stopped as the appellant was chastised by his brother P.W. 8 who returned home at that time along with his wife P.W. 9 and nephew P.W...
Sambhunath Das Vs. Sirish Ch. Mohapatra
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Aug-17-1984
Reported in: AIR1985Ori215
ORDERK.P. Mohapatra, J. 1. This revision is directed against the order passed by the learned District Judge, Balasore confirming the order passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Balasore refusing to set aside the ex parte final decree passed in O. S. 122 of 1970.2. The petitioner was defendant No. 1 and the opposite party was the plaintiff in the suit for partition (O. S. No. 122 of 1970). The preliminary decree in the suit was passed on 21-12-1973 declaring half share of each of the aforesaid parties in respect of the subject-matter of partition. According to the petitioner, he served as a Porter in Calcutta and when he came home on 24-9-1978, he was informed by his wife that on 18-9-1978 a process server of the civil Court had served a notice by affixture. On going through the notice the petitioner came to know that he was noticed to appear in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Balasore in Execution Case No. 14 of 1978. He came and met his Advocate at Balasore on 15-8-1978 and sho...
Paspulati Lakshman Rao Vs. T. Nandagopal and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Aug-14-1984
Reported in: AIR1985Ori111; 58(1984)CLT519
G.B. Patnaik, J.1. Plaintiff is the appellant against the judgment and decree of the Subordinate Judge, Berhampur, in a suit for declaration that plaintiff is the nearest reversioner of the last male holder G. Narasing Rao and is entitled to the property of said Sri Rao with further prayer that the so called adoption of defendant No. 1 to Late G. Narasing Rao by his widow Laxmikantamma is invalid and further the will executed by Laxmikantamma is not valid and binding on the plaintiff.2. According to the plaint case, G. Narasing Rao died on 3-10-1949 without leaving any issue. His widow was Laxmikantamma. Plaintiff is the nearest reversioner of Narasing Rao being the nephew of Narasing Rao's sister's son Simachalapatirao. The said Simachalapatirao died at Berhampur on 15-10-1962, There is no other nearest heir of G. Narasing Rao other than the plaintiff. The plaintiff and his uncle Simachalapatirao filed Title Suit No. 19/50 (renumbered as T. S. 1/54) against the widow of Narasing Rao a...
Sarada Charan Misra Vs. Smt. Prafulla
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Aug-14-1984
Reported in: AIR1985Ori232
P.C. Misra, J.1. The plaintiff in O. S. No. 3 of 1971 of the Court of the District Judge, Cuttack is the appellant in this appeal. The plaintiff-appellant prayed for grant of letters of Administration in respect of an unregistered will dated 21-1-1968 said to have been executed by his paternal uncle Basudeb Misra (hereinafter referred to as 'testator'), The learned District Judge on a consideration of the evidence on record came to hold that the will (Ex. 1) was not executed and attested on the date, time and place and in the manner as alleged by the plaintiff. Some suspicious circumstances surrounding the will having not been explained by the plaintiff, the learned Court below ultimately held that the will is not genuine. Consequently, the prayer of the plaintiff for grant of letters of Administration was refused by the learned Court.2. The plaintiffs case is that one Gopal Charan Misra had two sons namely Banchhanidhi and Basudeb. Banchhanidhi has got two sons and five daughters. Pla...
Kartik Bag Vs. State
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Aug-13-1984
Reported in: 58(1984)CLT477; 1984(II)OLR874
B.K. Behera, J.1. The Court of trial has held it established, by accepting the case of the prosecution, that on January 17, 1978, the appellant dealt, a lathi blow on Parameswar Bag (to be described hereinafter as the deceased') and after the latter fell down, dealt some blows by an are which he and his wife had carried to the land in their cultivating possession after the deceased went upon the land, of the appellant and dealt a lathi blow which missed the appellant and hit the ground. For his conviction under Section 302 of the Indial Penal Code (for short, the 'Code'), the appellant has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life.2. The medical evidence would undoubtedly show that the death of deceased was homicidal in nature- The evidence led by he prosecution that the appellant: had caused injuries on the person of the deceased which bad resulted in his death has not been challenged before us by Mr. Das appearing for the appellant. It had been submitted by him that what had be...
Ramesh Lal Shantuka Vs. Suresh Lal Shantuka
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Aug-10-1984
Reported in: AIR1986Ori69
ORDERD.P. Mohapatra, J.1. The defendant in T. S. 383/82/102/82 pending in the Court of the Sub-Judge, 1st Court, Cuttack is the petitioner in this revision. He impugns the order dated 28-3-83 in the said suit rejecting his petition dated 21-12-83 praying to call upon the opposite party (plaintiff) to state expressly whether he intends to recall any of his witnesses for further examination and not to proceed with his examination till further examination of the witnesses for the opposite party is over.2. The gist of the facts material for purpose of this proceeding is that the opposite party has filed the suit for preliminary decree for partition of the suit properties and for determination of his share therein. The case of the plaintiff, in short, is that by an oral partition on 30-10-78 the joint family property described in the schedule of the plaint- fell jointly to the share of himself and the defendant who are brothers. It is his further case that this oral partition was reduced to...
Puna Bewa and ors. Vs. Dinabandhu Mangaraj and anr.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Aug-10-1984
Reported in: AIR1985Ori130; 58(1984)CLT295
ORDERR.C. Patnaik, J.1. This revision is directed against an order rejecting the petitioners' application for amendment of the plaint.2. The original plaintiff died and thepetitioners were substituted by order dated 11-3-80. They put in an application for amendment of the plaint by way of correction of the description of property, that is by way of change of plot numbers and area. Certain alterations consequential to substitution were also prayed for.3. The learned Munsif upheld the objection of the defendants-opposite parties and rejected the prayer. The sole ground was that the suit was of the year 1977 and the written statement was filed in 1978. The prayer for amendment was made two years thereafter.4. The order is unsupportable. It has been repeatedly impressed upon the subordinate courts that Order 6, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure is in widest terms, the object being ends of justice. Embargo has been put by judicial decisions to prevent gross injustice to the other side ...
Mst. Satya Sahuani Vs. Chudamani Sahu and anr.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Aug-10-1984
Reported in: AIR1985Ori131; 58(1984)CLT287
ORDERK.P. Mohapatra, J.1. This revision is directed against the order passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Baragarh on 18-11-80 in T.S. No. 46 of 1977 allowing amendment of the written statement. The plaintiff is the petitioner.2. The facts in brief may be stated. Trilochan was the owner in possession of Schedule 'A' land of the plaint which consisted of a homestead in village Taipadar with a length of 27 cubits from east to west, 20 cubits from, north to south on the eastern side and 18 cubits on the western side. There was a dwelling house and a cow-shed thereon. After death of Trilochan, his widow Mst. Sanatara remained in occupation thereof. She died in 1971 leaving the petitioner and her deceased sister who was the mother pf opposite party No. 2 defendant. The suit land thereafter came to be jointly possessed by the petitioner and her sister and after her death by opposite party No. 2. In 1976 opposite party No. 2 executed a plain paper sale deed without passing of considerati...
Ainthu Charan Parida Vs. Sitaram Jayanarayan Firm and anr.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Aug-10-1984
Reported in: AIR1984Ori230; 58(1984)CLT243; 1984(I)OLR819
Behera, J. 1. In this revision directed against the order passed by the additional District Judge, Keonjhar, refusing to condone the delay in preferring a Money Appeal presented under Order 41, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, the 'Code') and rejecting the memorandum of appeal, the question referred by our learned brother R.C. Patnaik, J. for a decision is as to whether an order rejecting a memorandum of appeal or dismissing an appeal following the rejection of an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay in preferring an appeal is a decree. If it is, an appeal is competent and if it is not, a revision may lie. The reference has been made because of conflicting decisions of some High Courts including this Court.2. The operative part of the impugned order passed by the learned Additional District Judge in the Money Appeal reads :'In view of the discussion as made above, I do not find any sufficient ground to condone the delay in fi...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »