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

2017 Supreme(Ori) 199

A.K.RATH
Govinda Nahak – Appellant
Versus
Juria Gouda – Respondent


Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioners: Ms. Deepali Mahapatra
For the Opposite Parties : Mr. R.L. Pradhan

JUDGMENT :

A.K. Rath, J.

This petition challenges the order dated 16.12.2014 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Aska. By the said order, the learned trial court rejected application of the defendants under Order 26 Rule 9 C.P.C. to appoint S.D.O., Minor Irrigation, Hinjilicut as Commissioner for local investigation and to submit report about the water channel.

2. The opposite parties as plaintiffs instituted the suit for mandatory injunction directing the petitioners-defendants to fill the channel over the suit land and permanent injunction. The case of the plaintiffs is that the suit land appertaining to Hal Khata Nos.552 and 91, Hal Plot Nos.1382, 1376 and 1334 measuring an area Ac.0.210 dec. of mouza-Sahaspur under Sanakhemundi Tahasil belong to them. The Government of Orissa constructed the Rushikulya canal, which passes through village Sahaspur. The said canal exists to the west of the suit plot. While the matter stood thus, some of the villagers of Sahaspur including the defendants-petitioners, who belong to village Tulasipadar, dug a channel in the year 1987 for the purpose of irrigation and damaged crops. The plaintiffs filed Misc. Case No.5 of 1987 before th






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