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

2003 Supreme(Ori) 37

P.K.TRIPATHY
SANATAN BARIK – Appellant
Versus
PURNA CHANDRA BARIK – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
A.MOHANTY, B.K.DAS, D.K.SATPATHY, G.KARMARKAR, J.BEHARA, M.PANDURANGA RAO, P.KAR, S.K.Malik, S.P.BARIK

P. K. TRIPATHY, J.

( 1 ) MR. Kar, learned counsel for the petitioners is present. None appears for the opposite party. Mr. Kar states that he could not find the address of the counsel for the opposite party, therefore, he could not intimate him. Since the name of the counsel is indicated in the cause list and he has not appeared either yesterday or today, therefore this revision will not be adjourned any further.

( 2 ) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioners and this civil revision stands disposed of at the stage of admission in the following manner.

( 3 ) DEFENDANTS in the Court below are the petitioners against the order of appointment of receiver with respect to the suit property as per order passed by Civil Judge (Senior Division), Balasore in Title Suit No. 443 of 1998. Opposite party is the plaintiff in that suit. As noted in the impugned judgments and also it reveals from the copy of the plaint, which is produced for perusal, that the suit has been filed for a declaration that no title with respect to the suit land passed on to the father of the defendants or to the defendants on the basis of the four registered deeds, which were executed by the father of the plaintiff.




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