ARIJIT PASAYAT
TANIMA MISHRA – Appellant
Versus
PRADEEP KUMAR PATNAIK – Respondent
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
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.