Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
K.R.MOHAPATRA
Gokula Naik – Appellant
Versus
Pitambar Naik – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. overview of the case and procedural history. (Para 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. argument for enforcement of status quo order. (Para 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 3. court's duty to uphold orders and inherent powers. (Para 8) |
| 4. setting aside previous order and remitting case. (Para 9) |
| 5. directions for expedited trial court proceedings. (Para 10 , 11) |
ORDER :
2. 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.
3. Office note indicates that notice on Opposite Party No.1 has returned un-served with a postal endorsement 'Addressee left'. Notices on Opposite Party Nos.6 and 7 returned un-served as they refused to accept the same. Further, tracking report of Postal Department discloses that notices on Opposite Party Nos.2 to 5 and 8 to 11 have been delivered to them on 30th August, 2022. Thus, notices on Opposite Party Nos.2 to 11 are treated to be sufficient.
5. Mr. Panda, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that along with the plaint, the Petitioner filed an application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 C.P.C. in I.A. No.1 of 2020. Said application was allowed in part on contest vide order dated 20th January, 2021 with the following direction:
In spite of the aforesaid order, the Opposite Parties are pro
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
