2003 (Supp.) OLR — 703
P. K. TRIPATHY, J.
Narayan Dash...Petitioner
Versus
Gouranga Charan Dash and others...Opp.Parties
Pramod Kumar Sahoo @ Prusty...Petitioner
Versus
Iswar Sahu and others...Opp. Parties
Dukhabandhu Nayak...Petitioner
Versus
State of Orissa and Ors...Opp. Parties
Smt. P. Chilkama and Anr...Petitioners
Versus
State of Orissa and OPs...Opp.Parties
Smt. P. Achama and Ors...Petitioners
Versus
State of Orissa and Ors...Opp.Parties
Madusudan Pradhan and ors...Petitioners
Versus
Santosh Kumar Das...Opp.party
Bibhisen Gouda...Petitioner
Versus
Laxmi Gouda and Ors...Opp.Parties
Smt. Binapani Nanda @ Mishra...Petitioner
Versus
Smt. Satyabhama Mishra and Ors...Opp.Parties
State Bank of India...Petitioner
Versus
M/s. Kelvin Pharmaceutical
Laboratories and Ors...Opp.Parties
Smt. Pramila Pattnaik...Petitioner
Versus
Subhranshu Kumar Patnaik
and others...Opp.Parties
Kashinath Mohapatra...Petitioner
Versus
Satrughna Mohapatra and Ors...Opp.Parties
B. Engineers and Builders Ltd...Petitioner
Versus
State of Orissa and Anr...Opp.Parties
Civil Revision Petition Nos. 163 of 2002, and 6,10,29,30,70,127,154,178,183,188 and 236 of 2003
(Date of Judgment : 5.9.2003)
2. CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE, 1908 - Sec. 115 - Revisions - Maintainability - Impugned orders involved in the revisions are orders of interlocutory nature - Not passed in a proceeding within the meaning of that term which can be given to that by applying the principle of 'ejusdem generis' - Since the suit or other proceedings shall not stand disposed of if the impugned orders would have been passed in favour of the revision-petitioners - Civil Revisions not maintainable. (Para - 8)
JUDGMENT
P. K. TRIPATHY, J. — The common question of maintainability of the Civil Revision Petitions in view of amendment to Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short, ‘the Code’) by Act 46 of 1999 has arrested the further consideration of the CRPs on merit. Therefore, that common question of law is consid¬ered in each of the aforesaid CRPs with respect to the following type of cases involved in each of the CRPs. This common judgment shall abide the result on the question of maintainability of all the aforesaid CRPs.
CRP No. 163 of 2002
Respondent No.6 in Title Appeal No.16 of 1996 of the Court of Addl.District Judge, Bargarh has challenged to the order passed on 2.7.2002 by the said Court in allowing the prayer for amendment of the appeal memo to insert some names and to correct the cause title.
CRP No. 6 of 2003
Petitioner filed an application under Order 1, Rule 10 (2) of the Code for adding him as a party to Title Suit No. 33/10/169 of 1998/91/1985 of the Court of Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Nim¬para. On 29.10.2002 learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division) passed the impugned order rejecting the application.
CRP No.10 of 2003
The plaintiff/appellant in Title Appeal No.43 of 1997 of the Court of ad hoc Addl.District Judge (FTC), Dhenkanal filed an application for amendment of the plaint. On 7.11.2002 that Court considered and rejected the application.
CRP No.29 of 2003
An application was filed by the plaintiff to call for cer¬tain documents in Title Suit No.247 of 2000 of the Court of Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Bhubaneswar. On 6.1.2003 learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division) heard and rejected that application.
CRP No. 30 of 2003
An application was filed by the plaintiffs to call for certain documents in Title Suit No.262 of 2000 of the Court of Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Bhubaneswar. On 6.1.2003 learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division) heard and rejected that application.
CRP No.70 of 2003
Plaintiff’s application for amendment of the plaint in Title Suit No.51 of 1993 of the Court of Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Nayagarh was rejected by that Court as per the impugned order passed on 25.1.2003.
CRP No. 127 of 2003
Application for amendment filed by Defendant No.1 in Title Suit No. 128 of 1998 of the Court of Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Berhampur was heard and rejected by that Court as per the im¬pugned order passed on 4.2.2003.
CRP No. 154 of 2003
There are two plaintiffs in the suit. Plaintiffs filed an application purported to be under Order 11 Rule 12 of the Code with the prayer to call for certain documents in Title Suit No.37 of 1998 of the Court of Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Bhanjanagar as per the impugned order passed on 24.3.2003 learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division) rejected that application. Thus, plaintiff No.1 has filed this CRP challenging to that order.
CRP No.178 of 2003
In TMS No. 409 of 1992 of the Court of 1st Addl.Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Cuttack an application was filed by the plaintiff to recall P.W.7 for his further evidence. On 19.2.2003 learned 1st Addl.Civil Judge (Sr. Division) rejected that applica¬tion. That order is impugned in this CRP.
CRP No. 183 of 2003
Petitioner’s application under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of the Code in Title Suit No.133 of 1999, presently pending in the Court of Ad hoc Addl.District Judge (FTC), Dhenkanal, was heard and rejected by that Court as per the impugned order passed on 26.3.2003.
CRP No. 188 of 2003
Defendant No.2 in Title Suit No.25 of 1988 of the Court of Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Banki filed an application for amend¬ment of the written statement. As per the impugned order passed on 29.3.2003 learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division) rejected that application.
CRP No.236 of 2003
Petitioner is the plaintiff in Civil Proceeding No.311 of 2003 pending in the Court of Civil Judge (Sr.Division), Bhubanes¬war. In that suit he filed Interim Application No.273 of 2003 for temporary injunction under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code. In that Interim Application petitioner prayed for ad in
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.