Court : Orissa
Reported in : 105(2008)CLT865; 2008(I)OLR174
A.K. Parichha, J.1. This is a defendant's appeal against the judgment and decree passed by the learned District Judge, Ganjam-Gajapati, Berhampur in RFA No. 15 of 2005 confirming the order of eviction passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Berhampur in T.A. No. 137 of 1995.2. The present respondent as plaintiff filed the above suit with the pleading that she is the owner and landlord of the suit house and she inducted the present appellants as tenants in that house, but the appellants-tenants defaulted in payment of rent. She also pleaded that she needed the suit house for her personal use and therefore, served a notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the Act', in short) asking the appellants to quit the house, but when the latter failed to vacate the house, she filed the suit for eviction and damages.3. The appellants-defendants admitted the relationship between the parties, but pleaded, inter alia, that they never def...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : 2009(1)OLR41
L. Mohapatra, J.1. This contempt application has been filed alleging disobedience of the order dated 27.6.2000 passed in Misc. Case No. 1555 of 2000 arising out of O.J.C. No. 5705 of 1999.2. The writ application has been filed challenging the order of the O.E.A. Collector, Puri in Annexure-1 as well as Member, Board of Revenue, Cuttack in O.E.A. Revision No. 9 of 1995. In the writ application the above Misc. Case was filed for grant of injunction and by order dated 27.6.2000 this Court considering the nature of dispute restrained the contemnors from alienating the disputed land till disposal of the writ application. In the contempt petition, it is alleged that the said order was passed in presence of learned Counsel appearing for the contemnors and therefore, it is construed to be within the knowledge of the contemnors. It is also alleged that the contemnors after receiving the order and being well aware about the direction given by this Court executed the registered sale deed on 27.12...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : [2007(114)FLR177]
S. Panda, J.1. In this writ application, the petitioners have challenged the order dated 17.1.2003 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter, referred to as the 'Tribunal'), Cuttack Bench, Cuttack, in O.A. No. 137 of 2002.2. The facts of the case are that : Bhaskar Sahu, who was the father of Opposite Party No. 1 died on 4.4.1998 while working as Head Postman at Chhatrapur Head Post Office. Opposite Party No. 1 applied for compassionate appointment. His name was approved by the Circle Relaxation Committee and allotted to Berhampur Division in Postal Assistant cadre. At that time, there was no vacancy and the authority asked all the approved candidates to express their willingness for consideration for appointment in pursuance of Ministry of Personnel, PG and Pension, Department of Personnel and Training, New Delhi in OM No. 42012/4-2000-Estt (D), dated 24.11.2000 communicated in DG Posts Letter No. 24-1-/99-SPB.I, dated 8.2.2001. Subsequently, the authority found that ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : 2008(I)OLR235
Pradip Mohanty, J.1. This revision is directed against the order dated 23.10.1998 passed by the District Judge, Cuttack, in Title Appeal No. 124 of 1996 remanding the matter back to the trial Court under Order 41, Rule 25 of the Code of Civil Procedure.2. The case of the petitioners is that they as plaintiffs filed Title Suit No. 456 of 1987 before the 1st Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Cuttack for declaration of right, title, interest, and possession over the suit property, or in the alternative, for necovery of possession thereof. They also made a prayer for permanent injunction restraining the defendant-opposite parties from interfering with their peaceful posseasion over the suit property. The suit was decreed in their favour. Therelafte the unsccessful defendants Titie preferred Title Appeal No. 124 of 1996 before the District Judge, Cuttack. The appellate Court, after hearing the parties, remanded the matter to the trial Court under Order 41, Rule 25 C.P.C., which, acc...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : 2008(I)OLR209
B.P. Das, J.1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging the order dated 30.1.2004 passed by the Revenue Divisional Commissioner, Southern Division, Berhampur, O.P.1 in O.G.L.S.R.C. No. 13/2002, vide Annexure-1.2. The brief facts, as delineated in this writ petition, tend to reveal as follows:The petitioner, who claims to be the Proprietor of a hotel 'M/s. Hotel Khusi' at Bhawanipatna, on 1.1.2001 applied to the Tahasildar, Kalahandi, O.P.3 for grant of lease of a government land measuring an area of Ac. 0.500 decimals under Khata No. 1456 plot No. 1528/5999 for running a hotel-cum-lodge. The Tahasildar on receipt of such application directed the Amin to cause a field enquiry and submit report by 3.1.2001. Pursuant to such direction of the said Tahasildar, the Amin verified the records and submitted a report indicating that the said plot was not reserved for any purpose and was also free from encumbrances. Considering the Amin's report, the Tahasildar issued a proclamatio...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : 2008(I)OLR335
A.K. Parichha, J.1. This is an appeal against the judgment and decree passed by the learned Addl. District Judge, Jeypore in Title Appeal No. 4 of 1985 reversing the judgment and decree of the learned Addl. Munsif, Jeypore in Title suit No. 24 of 1980.2. The appellants as plaintiffs filed the above noted suit with a pleading that the property described in the Schedule of the plaint is the joint family property of the plaintiffs and the father of the defendant namely Disarl Damdu. This Disari Dambu had no male issue, but had only a daughter, defendant No. 1. So he adopted plaintiff No. 3 as his son. The defendant was married and was living in her husband's village for last 40 years but after the death of Disari Dambu she claimed right, title over the suit property of Disari Dambu as the legal heir and also basing on a gift deed allegedly executed by the said Disari Dambu. Since there was a scramble for possession a 145, Cr.P.C. proceeding was initiated in the Court of Executive Magistra...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : 105(2008)CLT870; 2008(I)OLR478
N. Prusty, J.1. Even though the matter is listed for admission/hearing under Order XLI Rule 11 CPC, learned counsel for both the parties submit that the same can be disposed of at this stage, since the main grounds of challenge in this appeal are with regard to the liability of the Insurance Company to pay the awarded amount indemnifying the owner of the vehicle, even if the driver of the vehicle was not having a valid Driving Licence at the time of the accident, which is violative of the terms and conditions of policy and the deceased was travelling in the offending vehicle as a gratuitous passenger as well as the quantum of compensation and rate of interest awarded are on the higher side.2. This appeal has been filed by Respondent No. 3/Insurance Company challenging the award dated 14.12.2000 passed by the learned Additional District Judge-cum-MACT, Nawarangpur in Misc. Judicial Case No. 88/2000 (M.J.C. No. 22 of 97 of D.J.), which was filed under Section 166 of the M.V. Act.3. The c...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : AIR2008Ori46; 105(2008)CLT304; 2008(I)OLR49
ORDERA.K. Parichha, J.1. This is an appeal challenging the order of learned Additional District Judge, Sonepur in RFA No. 45/45 of 2002-2004 setting aside the ex parte judgment dated 24.08.2002 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sonepur in T.S. No. 36 of 1999 and remanding the matter to the trial Court for fresh disposal on merit.2. The appellants as plaintiffs filed the above noted suit for declaration of title, confirmation of possession and the alternative recovery of possession and also for permanent injunction against the defendants. The defendant-respondents did not contest that suit and in consequence ex parte judgment and decree was passed. The respondent-defendants challenged that ex parte judgment in the above noted RFA. Learned first appellate Court held that there was sufficient cause for non-appearance of the defendants on the date of hearing. He also held that the suit should be decided on merit and accordingly set aside the ex parte judgment and remande...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : 2008(I)OLR179
Pradip Mohanty, J.1. In the instant revision, the petitioner is aggrieved by the judgment dated 26.05.1998 passed by the learned 2nd Addl. Sessions Judge, Bhubaneswar in Criminal Revision No. 28/30 of 1997/94 reversing the order dated 25.03.1994 of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Bhubaneswar in Crl. Misc. Case No. 217 of 1993.2. The petitioner is the 1st party in the trial Court and opposite party No. 2 before the learned 2nd Addl. Sessions Judge, Bhubaneswar (lower revisional Court). The case of the petitioner is that her residential house is situated over plot No. 1120 corresponding to Sabik Plot No. 87 and the private opposite parties are the owners of Hal Plot Nos. 1122 and 1123 corresponding to Sabik Plot No. 88. To the South of the above plots, a public passage runs bearing Plot No. 1126, which is used by the family of the petitioner and others. The private opposite parties have occupied a major portion of the said passage by constructing a shed, thereby obstructing free passage/T...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : 2009ACJ1693; AIR2008Ori68; 105(2008)CLT475; 2008(I)OLR191
ORDERB.N. Mahapatra, J.1. This matter is listed today for orders but on the consent of the learned Counsel for both parties, the same is taken up for final disposal.2. This is an appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'), filed by the Insurance Company challenging the award dated 30.6.2001 passed by the Addl.District Judge-cum-Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the 'Tribunal'), Nabarangpur, in M.J.C. No. 49 of 2000/M.J.C. No. 73/1997 of D.J.-cum-M.A.C.T., mainly on the ground that the Insurance Policy issued by the appellant in respect of offending vehicle was a commercial vehicle meant for carriage of goods and that the appellant does not cover the risk of passengers carried in the vehicle but covers the risk of driver, helper and four labourers in the vehicle. The further ground of the appellant is that since the deceased was travelling as passenger in a private goods vehicle which is contrary to policy con...
Tag this Judgment!