SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1990 Supreme(Ori) 125

G.B.PATTANAIK
RAMSEWAK KASHINATH – Appellant
Versus
SARAFUDDIN – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
B.P.ROY, D.NAIK, D.P.SAHU, P.MOHANTY, S.K.PADHI, S.S.BASU

G. B. PATTANAIK, J.

( 1 ) THIS revision raises an interesting question of law with regard to the interpretation of Rule 6a of O. 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Plaintiff is the petitioner. After dismissal of his suit as not maintainable, the counter-claim filed by the defendants for eviction of the plaintiff was allowed to proceed which was registered as T. S. No. 12a of 1979. The plaintiff filed an application on 5-3-1986 invoking the jurisdiction of the Subordinate Judge under O. 8, Rule 6c, Code of Civil Procedure, praying to reject the counter-claim for eviction. The Subordinate Judge having dismissed that petition by order dated 13-3-1986, the plaintiff has filed the present revision.

( 2 ) THE short facts are that the plaintiff filed the suit for declaration of his title, confirmation of possession and permanent injunction against the defendants in respect of a plot of land on 22-6-1979, which was registered as Title Suit No. 12 of 1979. The defendants filed their written statement on 15-10-1979. On 17-4-1980, the plaintiff filed an application for amendment of the plaint and as the amendment was minor in nature, the same was allowed by order dated 20th of April, 1980. Th





Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top