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.
Khatuna and anr. Vs. Ramsewak Kashinath, a Partnership Firm and anr.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jan-02-1985
Reported in: AIR1986Ori1
ORDERK.P. Mohapatra, J. 1. This revision is directed against the order passed by the learned Subordinate Judge. Rourkela permitting the plaintiffs to withdraw Title Suit No. 12 of 1979 with liberty to institute a fresh suit on the same cause of action. 2. It is necessary to narrate the essential facts in order to appreciate the contentions raised by the rival parties. The dispute between them centered around valuable land measuring Ac. Order 18 in Rourkela town which admittedly belonged to the petitioners (Defendants). The opposite parties (plaintiffs) instituted the suit and averred in the plaint that in or about the year 1955, the petitioners leased out the suit land in their favour on annual rent of Rs. 1800/-which they required for the purpose of installation of a petrol delivery station, depot, office and godown. After obtaining the lease and on receiving assurance from the petitioners that the lease was on permanent basis and they shall not be evicted in future, the opposite part...
ishteyaque Ahamad and anr. Vs. Kitawan Bibi and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jan-02-1985
Reported in: AIR1985Ori102; 1985(I)OLR102
ORDERK.P. Mohapatra, J. 1. The opposite parties obtained a decree with costs against the petitioners in Title Suit No. 35 of 1967 on 11-9-1970 in the Court of the learned Munsif, Panposh to the following effect :-- 'The right, title and interest of the petitioners over the suit premises and shed are declared. The Defendants are permanently restrained to farther construct and they are directed to demolish the alleged construction made by them. It is further ordered that if the defendants do not demolish the construction made by them within a month from this date the plaintiffs be entitled to get it demolished through Court' The opposite parties levied execution on 21-3-1980 in Execution Case No. 3 of 1980 praying therein 'demolition of the construction made by the defendants on the suit land and realisation of the costs of the (sic) (suit) and the costs of this execution by attachment and sale of the moveables of the judgment debtors'. The petitioners after appearance objected to the ex...
Govinda Chandra Tripathy and anr. Vs. Pal Hira Purchase Ltd.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jan-02-1985
Reported in: AIR1985Ori178; 1985(I)OLR156
ORDERK.P. Mohapatra, J. 1. This revision is directed against the order passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Puri in Misc, Case No. 130 of 1981 under S. 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short the 'Code') restoring Execution Case No. 63 of 1972.2. The relevant facts may be stated in brief. The opposite party (plaintiff-decree-holder) obtained a decree from the Bombay High Court on 24-11-1965 in Suit No. 575 of 1964 against the petitioners (defendants-judgment-debtors). The said decree was transferred to the court of the learned Judge, Puri for execution. Accordingly execution was levied in the aforesaid court against the petitioners on 25-4-1972 in Execution Case No. 63 of 1972 for recovery of a sum of Rs. 15,288.44 paise by sale of movable and immovable properties. The decree could not be executed until 22-4-81 when the opposite party was directed to take steps in aid of execution. On that day the opposite party applied for adjournment which was refused and the execution case...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›