Orissa Court April 2006 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.
Sri Bajranglal Ladha Vs. Sri Maniklal Bhattar and 14 ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Apr-04-2006
Reported in: AIR2006Ori127; 101(2006)CLT633
ORDERN. Prusty, J.1. Heard Mr. Mohapatra, Learned Counsel for the petitioner.2. This writ petition has been filed by defendant No. 1/appellant challenging the order dated 15.2.2006 passed by the Learned Additional District Judge, Mayurbhanj, Baripada in R.F.A. No. 1/24 of 2005-06 whereby the Learned Appellate Court has allowed the prayer for amendment of the memorandum of appeal and simultaneously rejected the prayer for amendment of the written statement, in considering an application filed by the defendant No. 1/petitioner under Order 41, Rule 5 read with Order 6, Rule 17 of the C.P. Code.3. As it appears from the impugned order, an application was filed by defendant No. 1/appellant during the pendency of the appeal, for amendment of both the memorandum of appeal as well as the written statement. Considering the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the respective parties and after going through the contents of the petition, Learned Appellate Court allowed the prayer for amendm...
Tetengu Rautia Vs. Hagru Rautia
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Apr-03-2006
Reported in: 101(2006)CLT561; 2006(I)OLR653
ORDERN. Prusty, J.1. This writ petition has been filed by the defendant challenging the order dated 28.1.2004 passed by the Learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sundargarh in Title suit No. 11 of 2002 allowing the prayer of the Plaintiff for amendment of the plaint as well as the later order in rejecting the prayer made by the defendant in his petition under Order 7, Rule 11(a) of the C.P. Code for rejection of the plaint, which was also confirmed by the Learned 1st. Ad hoc Additional District Judge, Sundargarh in Civil Revision No. 2/2 of 2004 vide order dated 12.12.2005.2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that this amendment petition has been filed in a suit for partition two years after the plaint was presented. The Plaintiff has only prayed for partition of the 'A' Schedule Property which is being possessed by the defendant, but the portion of property which is under his possession as per the earlier in the mutual deed for partition, i.e., 'B' Schedule Property has not ...
Ghanashyam Nanda and Five ors. Vs. Kartik Pradhan and Two ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Apr-03-2006
Reported in: (2006)101CALLT713; 101(2006)CLT713; 2006(I)OLR689
ORDERN. Prusty, J.1. Heard Mr. Mohanty, learned Counsel for the petitioners.2. This writ petition has been filed by the plaintiffs-petitioners against the order dated 22.11.2005 passed by the learned Civil Jude (Junior Division), Jagatsinghpur in C.S. No.128 of 2002 rejecting the application filed by the petitioner for substitution and setting aside abatement, since application for setting aside abatement was filed on 28.7.05 i.e. on the 95th day of the abatement of the suit on 25.4.05, which is beyond the limitation period of 60 days as prescribed under Article 121 of the Limitation Act and no prayer has been made for condonation of delay of 35 days in making the prayer for setting aside the abatement.3. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioners that defendant No.2, namely, Bijuli Pradhan, died on 25.1.2005. Petition for substitution of her legal heirs in her place was filed on 25.4.2005. By wrongly calculating the period of limitation even though the petition for sub...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›