Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
D.DASH
Sitanath Sahoo – Appellant
Versus
Kalpana Pradhan – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. jurisdiction and substitution of legal representatives. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. court's review of procedural compliance. (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. decree's legality based on title claims. (Para 7 , 8) |
| 4. impact of improper legal representation. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 5. final ruling and restoration of trial court's decree. (Para 13 , 14) |
JUDGMENT :
D. Dash, J.
The Appellant, by filing this Appeal, under Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, ‘the Code’), has challenged the judgment and decree passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Balasore, in R.F.A. No.13/92 of 2018/2014.
2. The Appellant as the Plaintiff had filed Title Suit No.93/1998-I in the Court of learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Balasore for declaration of his right, title, interest, correction of the Record of Right (RoR) in respect of the suit land with further prayer of permanent injunction as against the predecessor in interest of Respondent No.1 to 4, namely Anadi Charan Pradhan, who had been arraigned as Defendant No.5 in the suit, the Respondent No.5 (since dead), the predecessor in interest of Harihar Barik, the original Defendant No.3 and Respondent No.6 (Defendant No.6) as als
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
