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

1991 Supreme(Ori) 120

ARIJIT PASAYAT
TANIMA MISHRA – Appellant
Versus
PRADEEP KUMAR PATNAIK – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
M.M.SAHAI, RATI MOHANTY, S.K.MOHANTY, Shanti Prakash

ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.

( 1 ) PETITIONER assails correctness of an order passed by the learned District Judge, Cuttack, directing her and opposite party to appear in person to explore possibilities of a settlement in terms of Rule 3 of Order 32-A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short 'the Code' ).

( 2 ) ). Background facts are that a suit has been filed by the petitioner for a declaration that her marriage with opposite party was a nullity and/or void, and was at the relevant time, pending adjudication before the learned District Judge, Cuttack. According to the petitioner, marriage solemnized on 2-2-1988 was a nullity or void ab initio since the opposite party had not completed 21 years of age on the said date. By order dated 7-4-1990, Court had directed personal appearance of parties concerned on 25-4-1990 for heating in terms of Order 10 of the Code. Such direction was given on the basis of a prayer made by the petitioner. On the date fixed, the learned counsel for petitioner prayed that personal appearance of petitioner may be dispensed with and service of her counsel may be utilised as permitted by Order 10, Rule 1. It was submitted that the petitioner had denied allegati






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