Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
K.R. MOHAPATRA
Anantram Bhotra – Appellant
Versus
Pratima Bhotra – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. jurisdiction for hearing in hybrid mode. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. challenge to acceptance of divergent written statements. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. right of legal representatives to independent pleas. (Para 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 4. legal representatives bound by original parties' pleadings. (Para 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 5. setting aside the impugned order and directions for expeditious trial. (Para 11 , 12 , 13) |
JUDGMENT :
1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.
3. Mr. Tripathy, learned counsel submits that the Petitioner as Plaintiff filed a suit for declaration that the Registered Sale Deed dated 16th January, 1969 is null and void, declaration that the ROR vide Khata No.56 of Bangapalli Mouza in the name of the Defendants is also null and void and also to declare right, title and interest of the Plaintiffs over the suit land as well as for permanent injunction. During pendency of the suit, Defendant No.1 died and was substituted by his legal heirs, namely, Opposite Party Nos. 1 to 4. Before death, Defendants had filed a written statement. But, the legal heirs of Defendant No.1 on being substituted filed another written statement taking independent stand describing a different story. Hence, the Plain
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
