Back
ORISSA HIGH COURT : CUTTACK
MURAHARI SRI RAMAN
Subhransu Kumar Mohapatra – Appellant
Versus
Rukmuni Mohapatra – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. right to sue based on legal representatives. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. proceeding with final hearing without factual disputes. (Para 3) |
| 3. arguments against substitution of a legal heir. (Para 4) |
| 4. legal justification for substitution based on the executor's right. (Para 5) |
| 5. court affirms substitution; allows case to proceed. (Para 14 , 15 , 16) |
JUDGMENT :
MURAHARI SRI RAMAN, J.
THE CHALLENGE :
Questioning the propriety of order dated 14.12.2022 of the Senior Civil Judge, Bhubaneswar in suit, bearing CS No.1601 of 2020, passed in consideration of a petition filed at the behest of the petitioner-defendant under Order XXII, Rule 3, of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (“CPC”, for short), this civil revision petition has been preferred invoking provisions of Section 115 with the following prayer(s):
“Therefore, it is prayed that the revision may be admitted, LCR may be called for and after hearing the parties, the same may be allowed by setting aside the impugned order dated 14.12.2022;
And for which act of kindness, the petitioner shall as in duty bound, ever pray.”
THE FACTS
2. The facts as outlined by the petitioner-defendant in the revision petition reveal that the original plai
An executor derives legal authority from a Will upon the testator's death, allowing a substituted plaintiff with vested interests under the Will to pursue litigation, regardless of the pending probat....
The trial court erred by abating the suit without proper inquiry into legal representation, as abatement is procedural and not substantive, requiring adherence to the principles laid out under Order ....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the mandatory requirement for the court to determine the legal representative of a deceased party when a dispute arises, as per Order 22 Rule 5 of ....
Merely because the evidence of respondent/defendant and Prabhakar Rao (PW-2) was not repeated all over again, it cannot be held that the appellant/ plaintiff could be non-suited on this ground.
Point of Law : Code of Civil Procedure enjoins various provisions only for the purpose of avoiding multiplicity of proceedings and for adjudicating of related disputes in the same proceedings, the pa....
The amendment to Order XXII Rule 4 of the CPC aims to ensure the continuation and culmination of effective adjudication and to prevent the proceedings from coming to an end summarily due to the death....
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
