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

2011 Supreme(Ori) 513

C.R.DASH
LINGARAJA MOHANTY – Appellant
Versus
BINODINI MOHANTY – Respondent


JUDGMENT :

C.R. Dash, J. - Whether a lies pendens purchaser should be added as a party either Under Order-1 Rule-10 or Order-22, Rule-10, CPC is the main question that arises for consideration in the present writ petition.

2. The present petitioner is the plaintiff. He filed Civil Suit No.75 of 2003 in the court of learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Puri inter alias for declaration that he (plaintiff) is the only legal successor of Swarnalata Mohanty and Radhashyam Mohanty of Kumbharpada, Puri and defendant no.1 (present opp. Party no.8) is not the legally married wife of said Radhashym Mohanty and defendant no.2 (present opp. Party no.1) is not the daughter of said Radhashyam Mohanty. He also sought for other incidental and ancillary reliefs as enumerated in paragraph-3 of the writ petition. Subrat Kumar Nayak (opp. party no.9) is the husband of Binodini Mohanty (defendant no.2-present opp. party no.1) and son-in-law of Bainamani Mohanty, (defendant no.1-present opp. party no.8). The aforesaid defendant no.1 and 2 filed their joint written statement denying the plaint averments. They appeared in the court through aforesaid Subrat Kumar Nayak (opp. party no.9), who is a practicin



























































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