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

1989 Supreme(Ori) 167

S.C.MOHAPATRA
PARBATI – Appellant
Versus
DURYODHAN – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
B.PATNAIK, L.DAS, MILAN KANUNGO, N.P.Patnaik, P.CH.MOHAPATRA, P.K.BISVAL, S.C.BARIK

S. C. MOHAPATRA, J.


( 1 ) PLAINTIFF filed the suit asserting that he is the adopted son of defendants father. Defendant contested the relationship and after trial, suit was dismissed against which plaintiff preferred an appeal. During pendency of the appeal, plaintiff filed an application for admitting some documents as additional evidence under Order 41, Rule 27 C. P. C. claiming that they are certified copies and public documents which contained admissions of the defendant before the Consolidation Authorities with regard to the relationship. It was stated that appellant could not produce the documents in the trial court due to shifting of the office of the Consolidation and Settlement Authorities. However, along with the application, no document was filed. Defendant-respondent objected to the acceptance of any additional evidence. Appellate court passed an order that the application would be considered at the time of hearing. Appeal was heared and was posted to 19-1-1989 for judgment. During that period, plaintiff filed an application for amendment of the plaint for which judgment could not be delivered. After the said application was disposed of, appellant filed an application t






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