Back
2003 (II) OLR — 409
P. K. TRIPATHY, J.
Sitaram alias Mahendra Ghosh... Petitioner
Versus
Sri Antaryami Mohapara and 18 others... Opp. Parties
Jogendranath Bhoi... Petitioner
Versus
Ashok Chandra Chakrabarty and another... Opp. Parties
Shri Indrajit Mohanty... Petitioner
Versus
Khirod Chandra Jena and another... Opp. Parties
Dhobani Dei and 10 others... Petitioners
Versus
Rebati Mulia and 17 others... Opp. Parties
Smt. Runi Behera... Petitioner
Versus
Raghu Behera and 13 others... Opp. Parties
Smt. Shantilata Giri... Petitioner
Versus
Laxmikanta Barik and 9 others... Opp. Parties
Ganesh Prasad Dash... Petitioner
Versus
Tilottama Dash and 3 others... Opp. Parties
Madhu Sudan Rout and another... Petitioners
Versus
Duryodhan Rout and 4 others... Opp. Parties
Padmabati Panda and another... Petitioners
Versus
Sankarlal Patwari and another... Opp. Parties
Lord Lingaraj Mohaprabhu, Bije at Bhubaneswar... Petitioner
Versus
Chittaranjan Panda and 3 others... Opp. Parties
Bhramarbar Sahoo... Petitioner
Versus
Kamala Mohanty and 8 others... Opp. Parties
Mahabir Pratihari... Petitioner
Versus
Sarat Chandra Dash and another... Opp. Parties
Manguli Parida and another... Petitioners
Versus
Chanchala Devi and another... Opp. Parties
Suni Singh and another... Petitioners
Versus
Tete Singh and 11 others... Opp. Parties
Mahadev Panda and five others... Petitioners
Versus
Ganeswar Panda and two others... Opp. Parties
Harekrushna Behera... Petitioner
Versus
Dhaneswar Behera and 11 others... Opp. Parties
Mrs. Anuradha Mohanty... Petitioner
Versus
State of Orissa and 2 others... Opp. Parties
Smt. Basanti Devi alias Garabadu and three others...Petitioners
Versus
Lord Lingaraj Mahaprabhu, Bije Bhubaneswar
and another... Opp. Parties
Sri Bansidhar Tripathy... Petitioner
Versus
Sri Suresh Chandra Tripathy and 4 others... Opp. Parties
Chandra Kumar Samantray... Petitioner
Versus
Alok Kumar Samantray and 2 others... Opp. Parties
Brajabandhu Pal... Petitioner
Versus
Susama Swain and another... Opp. Parties
Sri Biswanath Rana and another... Petitioners
Versus
Shantilata Das and another... Opp. Parties
T. Suryanarayan Patra... Petitioner
Versus
T. Appana Patra and 3 others... Opp. Parties
Suni Singh and another... Petitioners
Versus
Tete Singh and 11 others... Opp. Parties
Sri Gagan Barik and another... Petitioners
Versus
Pabani Barik and four others... Opp. Parties
The Editor and Publisher Shri Ashwiny Gautam, of fortnightly Oriya Magazine ‘Srimandir Samiksha’
and another... Petitioners
Versus
Sri Jagannath Temple Managing Committee, Puri, through its Chief Executive and another... Opp. Parties
Sri Mansing Majhi... Petitioner
Versus
Sri Kalia Majhi and two others... Opp. Parties
Ratnakar Puhan... Petitioner
Versus
Durga Prasad Jena and two others... Opp. Parties
Ratnamani Dei... Petitioner
Versus
Dolagovinda Jena and 32 others... Opp. Parties
Smt. Manjulata Sarangi... Petitioner
Versus
Dr. Gita Singh and 3 others... Opp. Parties
Bauribandhu Moharana and 3 others... Petitioners
Versus
Jhuna Dei alias Maharana... Opp. Party
Sk. Mumtaz Hussain... Petitioner
Versus
Sk. Yasin Ali and 6 others... Opp. Parties
Regional Director, Central Mine Planning and Design Institute Ltd.... Petitioner
Versus
Eagle’s View Security Services Private Ltd.... Opp. Party
Sri Amal Krushna Das... Petitioner
Versus
Smt. Minati Dey and five others... Opp. Parties
Rasmi Mohanty...Petitioner
Versus
Braja Kishore Sahu and another... Opp. Parties
Sri Mangulu Das... Petitioner
Versus
State of Orissa, represented by the Executive Engineer, Rural Works Division-1, Berhampur... Opp. Party
Smt. N. Mani Reddy... Petitioner
Versus
D. Godabari Reddy and 4 others... Opp. Parties
Civil Revision Petition Nos. 89, 107, 115, 124, 139, 158, 169, 181, 232, 237, 242, 254, 255, 261, 269, 270, 277, 283, 285, 293, 305, 315, 317, 326 and 336, all of 2002.
And
Civil Revision Petition Nos. 4, 22, 36, 44, 53, 71, 72, 73, 83, 85, 103, 116, 117, and 123, all of 2003.
Decided on 5th September, 2003.
(a)(i)Impugned order amounts to a case decided.
(ii)Such order must have been passed by any Court subordinate to such High Court.
(iii)Such order must not be appealable one.
(b)There must be allegation of jurisdictional error, i.e. to say-
(i)exercise of jurisdiction not vested in the Court below by law, or
(ii)a jurisdiction vested in it by law was failed to be exer¬cised, and/or
(iii)has acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity.
(c)If the impugned order had been passed in favour of the revision-petitioner then that would have finally disposed of the suit or other proceedings.
(Paras - 6 to 8)
2. CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE, 1908 - Sec. 115 - 'Case decided', - Meaning of - Even if the impugned order comes within the category of 'case decided', a person applying for revision against a particular order must satisfy the Court that if the impugned order would have been passed in his favour than the 'suit or other proceeding' would have stood disposed of finally. (Para - 5)
3. WORDS AND PHRASES - "Cases decided", "Proceeding" - Meaning of. (Paras - 4 to 6)
JUDGMENT
P. K. TRIPATHY, J. — By this common judgment all the afore¬said Civil Revisions are considered relating to maintainability in view of the amendment of Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short, ‘the Code’), which came into force by Act 46 of 1999 with effect from 1st July, 2002. Before consider¬ing the legal issue, orders which are impugned in each of the revision petitions are briefly noted as follows :
C.R.P. No. 89 of 2002
The respondent in Munsif Appeal No.95 of 1999 pending in the Court of District Judge, Balasore has preferred this revision challenging to the order dated 30.7.2002 passed by the District Judge in allowing the application for substitution filed by the appellant and rejecting the application for abatement filed by the respondent.
C.R.P. No. 107 of 2002
Plaintiff in Title Suit No.341 of 1996 of the Court of Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Bhubaneswar, has preferred this revision challenging to the order of addition of party by substituting the petitioners as against deceased defendant No.2.
C.R.P. No. 115 of 2002
Appellant in R.F.A. No.24 of 2002 has preferred this revi¬sion challenging to the order dated 26.8.2002 passed by the Fast Track Court No.2 at Bhubaneswar allowing his application under Order 41, Rule 5 of the Code subject to petitioner depositing Rs. 4,000/-(four thousands) per month in the Court towards occupation of the suit premises.
C.R.P. No. 124 of 2002
Plaintiffs in Title Suit No.277 of 1999 of the Court of Civil Judge (Sr. Division), 1st Court, Cuttack, have preferred this revision against the order dated 20.8.2002. In that order the Court below rejected the prayer of the plaintiffs to issue a direction to the defendants No. 7 and 8 to adduce evidence first.
C.R.P. No.139 of 2002
Plaintiff’s application under Order 6, Rule 17, C.P.C. having been rejected by the Civil Judge (Sr. Dvn.), Bhanjanagar in Title Suit No.16 of 2000, she has filed this revision.
C.R.P. No.158 of 2002
Plaintiff’s successive application under Order 6, Rule 17 of the Code for amendment of the plaint in Title Suit No.2 of 2000 of the Court of Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Udala was rejected as per the impugned order passed on 29.8.2002, and that order has been challenged in this civil revision.
C.R.P. No. 169 of 2002
Defendant No.1 in Title Suit No.290 of 2001 of the Court of Civil Judge (Sr. Division), First Court, Cuttack, has preferred this revision challenging to the order of appointment of G.A.L. to represent the interest of defendant Nos.2 and 3 who are per¬sons of unsound mind.
C.R.P. No.181 of 2002
Plaintiffs in Title Suit No. 46/217 of 2002/1995, who are also the defendants 1 and 2 in Title Suit No. 47/260 of 2002/1995 of the Fast Track Court No.1, Bhubaneswar, have preferred this revision as against the order dated 23.9.2002, because the trial Court directed the parties to file affidavits as contemplated under Order 18, Rule 4, C.P.C.
C.R.P. No. 232 of 2002
Petitioner’s application for adding them as parties to Title Suit No.442 of 1996 of the Court of Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Puri was rejected by that Court on 4.10.2002. Hence, they have filed this revision.
C.R.P. No. 237 of 2002
The revision-petitioner filed an application under Order 1, Rule 10, read with Section 151 of the Code to implead him as the representative of Shri Lingaraj Mahaprabhu, the defendant No.1, instead of permitting one Pranab Kishore Bharati Gosain to repre¬sent the deity. As per the impugned order dated 8.11.2002 in Title Suit No.592 of 2001, learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Bhubaneswar has rejected that application. Hence the revision.
C.R.P. No.242 of 2002
Plaintiff’s application for acceptance of documents in evidence in Title Suit No.60 of 1999 having been rejected on 20.11.2002 by the Addl.Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Dhenkanal, he has preferred this civil revision.
C.R.P. No.254 of 2002
The 3rd party-petitioner challenges to the order dated 10.7.2002 in Civil Revision No.42 of 2002 of the Court of Dis¬tr
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
