Orissa Court January 1985 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.
State of Orissa Vs. Ananda Prasad Mandal
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jan-10-1985
Reported in: AIR1985Ori142
P.C. Misra, J. 1. The sole defendam in Money Suit No. 340/6 of 1969/73 of the Court of the First Additional Subordinate Judge, Cuttack, is the appellant in this appeal. This is a suit by the plaintiff for recovery of a sum of Rs. 39,713.92 with pendente lite and future interest from the defendant who is the State of Orissa.2. The plaintiffs case in brief is that the plaintiff is a carriage and transport contractor and his business is to carry materials to different destinations. The plaintiff alleges that at the request of the Executive Engineer, Public Health Division, Cuttack, acting on behalf of the State of Orissa the plaintiff carried various materials, such as cement C.I. & G.I. pipes A.C.C. sheets, to different places during the period from 21-5-1965 to 21-8-1965. The works executed by the plaintiff were duly accepted by the defendant who enjoyed the benefits thereof. The plaintiff submitted bills for a total sum of Rs. 87,659.83 for the said works. From time to time the defenda...
Yernagula Kamaraju and ors. Vs. Manda Dandasi
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jan-09-1985
Reported in: AIR1986Ori122
ORDERS.C. Mohapatra, J.1. Defendants are the petitioners against an order of the Subordinate Judge, Parlakhemundi in Money Suit No. 8 of 1979 refusing the prayer of the defendants to hold that the suit has abated under Section 3(l)(c) of the Orissa Debt Relief Act, 1980 (Orissa Act 5 of 1981), (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').2. Defendant No. 1 is the father and defendants Nos. 2 and 3 are his minor sons. The suit was instituted on 2-3-1979 claiming realisation of a sum of Rs. 1,772/-. The plaintiffs case, in short, is that on 9-5-1972, defendant No. 1 took a loan of Rs. 500/- for himself and on behalf of his minor sons and on 10-3-1973, defendant No. I took a loan of Rs. 800/- to meet his urgent requirements and for household expenses. In respect of both the loans, he executed a promissory note on 10-3-1973. Defendants have filed a joint written statement claiming, amongst others, that the entire amount has been paid.3. While the suit was pending, the Act came into force on 13-3...
Kashi Biswanath Dev Vs. Paramananda Routrai and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jan-09-1985
Reported in: AIR1985Ori260; 1985(I)OLR256
K.P. MOHAPATRA, J.1. These Civil Revisions are directed against the common order passed by the learned Munsif, Second Court, Cuttack refusing amendment of the written statements under Order 6, Rule 17 of the C.P.C. (for short the 'Code'). Defendant 1 is the petitioner.2. The facts relevant for the purpose of consideration of the points which arise in the Civil Revisions may be briefly stated. Title Suit No. 212 of 77 and Title Suit No. 213 of 77 between the same parties, though in respect of different lands, were heard analogously. According to the case of the plaintiffs, their predecessors-in-interest acquired the suit lands in the years 1945 and 1946 by way of permanent lease and since then they have been inpossession thereof on payment of rent. Defendant 1 with the help of other defendants made preparation to reap the standing paddy crops and so the suits were instituted to restrain defendant 1 permanently from interfering with the plaintiffs' possession thereof. Defendant 1 in the ...
Benudhar Naik and anr. Vs. State of Orissa
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jan-09-1985
Reported in: 1985(I)OLR236
B.K. Behera, J.1. The appellant Benudhar and his illatum son-in-law Hrushikesh (the other appellant) stood charged under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, the 'Code') with having committed the murder of Sunamani Naik (to be referred to as 'the deceased') in furtherance of their common intention on August 31, 1979, at village Sorisia in the district of Cuttack, owing to a land dispute. The deceased was a close relation of the two appellants being the son of Gopimohan Naik (P. W. 3), cousin of the appellant Benudhar and had land contiguous to the land of the appellants who had a dispute with the former over the possession of a part of the land where stood a ridge. On the day of occurrence, both the sides had gone upon their lands for the purpose of cultivation. A quarrel occurred and there was an altercation which was heard by Gopimohan Naik (P. W. 3), father of the deceased. Owing to his old age, he was not in a position to cover the distance and in t...
Gokulananda Panda and ors. Vs. Jagannath Panda and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jan-08-1985
Reported in: 1985(I)OLR171
B.N. Misra, J.1. The first party members in M. C. No. 340/81, a proceeding under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, in the file of the learned Executive Magistrate, Chatrapur, are the present petitioners. 2. The dispute relates to Act 7. 79 cents of land appertaining to plot Nos. 121, 162, 215, 217, 192, 79 and 94 of Khata No. 30 of Moaza khasalapali, plot No. 425 of Khata No. 149 of Mouza Sahapur and plot Nos. 211 and 19 of Khata Nos. 92 and 17 respectively of Mouza Hundata. Admittedly the aforesaid lands belonged to Rahas Pandiani, widow of the late Laxrninarayan Panda. Petitioners' case is that petitioner No. 1 was the adopted son of Laxminarayan Panda and Rahas Pandiani and that he has eight annas interest in the lands of Laxminarayan and her adoptive mother, Rahas Pandiani, has eight annas interest in the lands of the late Laxminarayan Panda including the disputed lands. Petitioner No. 2 is the natural brother and petitioner No. 3 is the natural father of petitioner No...
Surendra Misra Vs. B. Trinath Rao and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jan-08-1985
Reported in: 1985(I)OLR208
B.N. Misra, J.1. The first party member in a proceeding under Section 145, Cr. P. C. is the petitioner and the present opposite parties are the members of the second party.2. On 13. 8. 1982, upon consideration of a police report from the officer-in-charge of Jatani P. S., the learned Executive Magistrate initiated a proceeding under Section 144 Cr. P. C. against the opposite parties and restrained them from entering upon the disputed property. On 25.9.1982 the learned Magistrate made the restraint order absolute. There after on 13.10.1982, after hearing counsel on both sides, the learned Magistrate converted the proceeding to one under Section 145 Cr. P. C. and issued a preliminary order under Section 145(1). Written statements were filed by both the parties and oral evidence was also adduced by the petitioner. Finally by order, dated 24.12.1982 the learned Magistrate declared that the petitioner was in possession of the disputed property and was entitled to retain possession until evi...
Surendra Mishra Vs. B. Trinath Rao and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jan-08-1985
Reported in: 1985CriLJ1850
ORDERB.N. Misra, J.1. The first party member in a proceeding under Section 145 Cr. P. C. is the petitioner and the present opposite parties are the members of the second party.2. On 13-8-1982, upon consideration of a police report from the Officer-in-charge of Jatani P. S., the learned Executive Magistrate initiated a proceeding under Section 144 Cr. P. C. against the opposite parties and restrained them from entering upon the disputed property. On 25-9-82 the learned Magistrate made the restraint order absolute. Thereafter on 13-10-82, after hearing counsel on both sides, the learned Magistrate converted the proceeding to one under Section 145 Cr. P. C. and issued a preliminary order under Section 145(1), Written statements were filed by both the parties and oral evidence was also adduced by the petitioner. Finally by order dt. 24-12-82 the learned Magistrate declared that the petitioner was in possession of the disputed property and was entitled to retain possession until evicted in ...
Duryodhan Jena Vs. Satyabadi Samal and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jan-07-1985
Reported in: AIR1986Ori58
ORDERD.P. Mohapatra, J.1. The defendant 1 in T. S. No. 40/83 filed before the Subordinate Judge, Parlakhemundi, is the petitioner in this application under Section 115 of Civil P. C. seeking to challenge the order of the Court accepting the application of the plaintiff under Order 23, Rule 1(3)(b), C.P.C. for permission to withdraw the suit with liberty to file a fresh suit, Satyabadi Samal, opposite party 1 in this application, filed the suit impleading the petitioner, Duryodhan Jena and the opposite parties 2 to 9 as defendants therein. The relief sought in the plaint was for permanent injunction restraining the defendant 1 not to interfere with his right, title, interest and possession over the suit property. The gist of the averments in the plaint was to the effect that the plaintiff was the owner of the land comprised in Khata No. 340, Plot No. 733, situated in mouza Gurandi, being his ancestral property. The plaintiff was in possession of the said land and was paying kist for the...
Binay Krushan Sadangi and ors. Vs. Smt. Katyaini Sadangi and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jan-04-1985
Reported in: AIR1985Ori295
ORDERD.P. Mohapatra, J.1. The short question involved in this revision petition is whether the suit abates under Section 4(4) of the Orissa Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation of Land Act, (for short referred to as the Act).2. The opposite party No. 1 filed a suit with an application for permission to sue as an indigent person (Misc. case No. 219 of 1981) in the court of the Subordinate Judge, Balasore. The reliefs sought in the plaint were to declare documents Nos. 4112 to 4118 dated 9-11-1979 executed by her in favour of defendants 1 to 9as illegal, inoperative, backed by no consideration and void; for confirmation of plaintiffs possession or in the alternative for recovery of possession. The petitioners in this revision petition are defendants 1, 2 and 3 in the suit. On being noticed by the Court, the petitioners filed their objection to the application under Order 33, Rule 1, Civil Procedure Code filed by the plaintiff-opposite party. They filed another applic...
Smt. Debmeni @ Devmani Atha Vs. Smt. Sarala Ben Mulji Bhinda
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jan-03-1985
Reported in: 1985(I)OLR215
S.C. Mohapatra, J.1. Decree-holder is the petitioner in this Civil Revision. She owns a house in Jharsuguda town. Opposite party was inducted as a monthly tenant in respect of that house by the petitioner. Petitioner filed an application under Section 7 of the Orissa House Rent Control Act, 1967 (Orissa Act 4.of 1.968) (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for directing the opp. party to' deliver possession to the petitioner. The Controller directed the opposite party to deliver possession in her absence. Petitioner filed an application for execution of the order in the Court of Munsif, Sambalpur. On 4.9.1980, the executing Court directed issue of writ of delivery of possession of the house by breaking open the lock fixing 30th September,: 1980 as the returnable date. Shortly thereafter, opposite party filed an application before the Controller under Order 9, Rule 13, Civil Procedure Code, for setting aside the ex parte order of eviction. She also filed an application for stay of the ex...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »