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

1985 Supreme(Ori) 162

R.C.PATNAIK
KANHU GAUDA – Appellant
Versus
D. KODANDI DORA – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
B.B.RATHOD, P.K.BHUYAN, P.V.Ramdas, R.N.ACHARYA, S.K.DAS GUPTA

R. C. PATNAIK, J.


( 1 ) THIS revision raises the question whether rejection of an application under Order 1, Rule 10, sub-rule (2) of the Code of Civil Procedure for addition of a party operates as res judicata if at a later stage of the suit an application is made under Order 6, Rule 17 of the Code to implead the said party.

( 2 ) THE petitioner brought an action for declaration of title, confirmation of possession and the relief of permanent injunction. He alleged that his father purchased the property in dispute in 1963 by a registered sale deed from one D. Buchibabu Dora who was the brother of defendant No. 1. In a partition, which took place around 1949, Defendant No. 1 (Opposite party No. 1) and his brothers, namely, D. Buchibabu Dora and D. Rammurty Dora, were allotted specific properties and the property in dispute was in possession and enjoyment of D. Buchibabu Dora. There was some mistake in the description of property. Registered document rectifying the mistake was obtained in 1975. When in a proceeding under Sec. 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure the opposite parties' (Defendants') possession was declared, he brought action for the relief stated above. On 2-4-1980,






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