Orissa High Court
Procedure vs Sudhanshu Kumar Mohapatra on 29 September, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
R.S.A. No.152 of 2015
(In the matter of an appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908)
Snehaprava Mohapatra and others .... Appellants
-versus-
Sudhanshu Kumar Mohapatra .... Respondents
Appeared in this case:-
For Appellants : Mr. B. Bhuyan, B.N. Mishra and
A. Pattnaik
For Respondents : Mr. Debasis Panigrahi, Smt. A.
Panigrahi, S. Acharya. Ms. S.
Swain, Advocate for Respondent
Nos. 1 to 3
Mr. M.K. Behera, Advocate for
Respondent No.4
Appeared in this case:-
CORAM:
JUSTICE A.C. BEHERA
JUDGMENT
Date of hearing : 11.09.2023 / date of judgment :29.09.2023 A.C. Behera, J. The appellants {those were the plaintiff and defendant nos.5, 6 and 7 before the learned trial court below in the court of learned 1st Additional Civil Judge (C.J. (S.D.), Cuttack in C.S. No.427 of 2007 and those were the Respondent Nos.1, 3, 4 and 5 in the 1st appeal vide RFA No.173 of 2012 in the court of learned 2nd Additional District Judge, Cuttack} have preferred this 2nd appeal. Being aggrieved with the judgment and decree of the 1st Appellate Court passed in R.F.A. N0.173 of 2012 on dated 19.02.2015.
// 2 //
2. The appellant No.1 was the sole plaintiff before the learned trial court below in C.S. No.427 of 2007, wherein the appellant Nos.2 to 4 were the defendant Nos.5, 6 and 7. In that suit vide C.S. No.427 of 2007, the respondent Nos.1, 4, 2 and 3 were the defendant Nos.1 to 4 respectively, The suit of the plaintiff/appellant No.1 was a suit for partition simpliciter. As per the averments made in the plaint, plaintiff and defendants are sisters and brothers respectively. Chintamani Mohapatra was their common ancestor and he was the grand-father of the plaintiff and defendants. Chintamani Mohapatra had one son, namely, Jagannath Mohapatra, who was the father of the plaintiff and defendants. Jagannath Mohapatra expired in the year 1967 leaving behind his widow Uttara Mohapatra along with the plaintiff and his defendants as his children. Chintamani Mohapatra expired in the year 1979. Thereafter his widow wife Chuna Mohapatra expired in the year 1981. The mother of the plaintiff and defendants, i.e. Uttara Mohapatra expired in the year 2003.
3. In order to have a better appreciation and so also for an easy understanding about the family pedigree of the plaintiff and defendants, their geneology as stated above, is depicted hereunder:-
Chintamani Mohapatra (1979) Chuna (wife) (1981) Jagannath (1967) Uttara (wife) (2003) ____________________________________________________________ (D-1) (D-2) (D-3) (D-4) (D-5) (D-6) (R-4) (D-7) Sudhanshu Himanshu Sitanshu Subhranshu Snehaprave Hema Prabha Suprava Smruti prava D-1 D-2 D-3 D-4 (plaintiff) D-5 D-6 D-7 // 3 //
4. According to the plaintiff, all the parties to the suit are governed and guided under Mitakshara School of Hindu Law. The properties of the suit described in schedule below of the plaint under different lots were the self acquired properties of Chintamani Mohapatra. After the death of Chintamani Mohapatra in the year 1979, the suit properties left by him, devolved upon his wife Chuna Mohapatra and the widow of his deceased son, i.e., Uttara Mohapatra along with the plaintiff and defendants by way of succession. When, the widow of Chintamani Mohapatra, i.e. Chuna Mohapatra expired in the year 1981, the share of Chuna Mohapatra over the suit properties devolved upon the plaintiff and defendants along with Uttara Mohapatra. Thereafter, when in the year 2003, the widow mother of the plaintiff and defendants, i.e., Uttara Mohapatra expired, then her share over the suit properties devolved upon the plaintiff and defendants equally.
Accordingly, after death of Chintamani Mohapatra, Chuna Mohapatra and Uttara Mohapatra, the plaintiff and defendants became the co-sharers of the entire joint and undivided suit properties having their 1/8 share each thereon. So, the RoRs of some lots of the suit properties stand in the name of the grand-father of the plaintiff, i.e. in the name of Chintamani Mohapatra exclusively and the RoRs of some lots of the suit properties stand jointly in the name of the plaintiff and defendants.
The suit scheduled properties are the joint and undivided properties of the plaintiff and defendants having their equal share each on the same and the said properties have not been partitioned between them through metes and bound partition. When misunderstanding arose between the plaintiff and defendants concerning the possession of the suit properties and when the brothers of the plaintiff did not respond her request for partition of the suit properties, then, without getting any way, // 4 // the plaintiff approached the Civil Court by filing the suit vide C.S. No.427 of 2007 against his four brothers arraying them as defendant Nos.1 to 4 along with her three sisters as defendant Nos.5 to 7 praying for partition of her 1/8th share from the suit schedule properties.
5. In that suit, the defendant Nos.1, 3 and 4 filed their written statement jointly challenging the claim of the plaintiff, but, whereas the defendant Nos.2, 5, 6 and 7 filed their written statements separately supporting the case of the plaintiff.
6. As per the pleadings in the W.S. of the contesting defendant Nos.1, 3 and 4 (those are the three brothers of the plaintiff), the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable due to lack of cause of action, because, after the death of Jagganath Mohapatra (who was the only son of Chintamani Mohapatra and who was the father of the plaintiff and defendants), the original owner of the suit properties, i.e., Chintamani Mohapatra was very sad and depressed, for which, during that time, the defendants 1 to 4 along with their widow mother Uttara Mohapatra had taken all the cares of Chintamani Mohapatra. Therefore, on being satisfied upon the nourishments made by the defendant Nos.1 to 4 along with their mother, Chintamani Mohapatra had executed and registered a WILL bearing No.19 dated 28.09.1975 bequeathing all the suit properties in favour of the defendant Nos.1 to 4 along with their mother Uttara Mohapatra. Chintamani Mohapatra had given the plaintiff and defendant Nos.5 to 7 in marriage in sound families by incurring huge expenditures. Since the execution and registration of the above WILL, the defendant Nos.1 to 4 were possessing of the suit properties on the strength of that WILL and they were paying land revenues thereof and they were obtaining the rent receipts. After the death of Chintamani Mohapatra on 25.07.1979, the defendant Nos.1 to 4 became the owners of the suit schedule properties by virtue of the aforesaid registered WILL. For which, the plaintiff and // 5 // defendant Nos.5 to 7 had/have no interest in the suit properties. But, when the Hal RoRs of the suit schedule properties in respect of some lots were prepared erroneously in the name of the plaintiff and defendants, then by taking the advantage of such wrong recording of the name of the plaintiff in some lots of the suit properties, she (plaintiff) has filed the suit claiming her 1/8th share from the same. But, in fact, neither the plaintiff nor the defendant Nos.5 to 7 has any right title interest and possession over any portion of the suit properties. For which, the suit filed by the plaintiff is liable to be dismissed with costs.
7. The defendant Nos.2,5, 6 and 7 in their respective written statements admitted the family pedigree of plaintiff and defendants as stated in the plaint and they also admitted to the claim of the plaintiff regarding the entitlement of each party as 1/8th share from the suit properties.
8. On the basis of the aforesaid matters in controversies between the parties as per their pleadings, altogether six numbers of issues were framed by the learned trial court below in C.S. No.427 of 2007 and the said issues are:-
ISSUES I. Is the suit maintainable?
II. Has the plaintiff cause of action to file the suit? III. Is the suit bad for non-joinder and mis-joinder of parties?
IV. Is the suit property Partiable?
V. Is the plaintiff entitled to get 1/8th share out of the suit
schedule properties?
VI. Is plaintiff entitled for any other relief?
9. In order to substantiate her aforesaid case against the defendant Nos.1, 3 and 4, she (plaintiff) had examined one witness on her behalf, // 6 // i.e., to her son as P.W.1 and had proved several documents from her side vide Exts.1 to 10. But, on the contrary the contesting defendant Nos.1, 3 and 4 had examined two witnesses on their behalf, i.e., to defendant Nos.2 and 4 as D.W.1 and 2 respectively and they had proved some documents vide Ext. A, B to C/4 from their side.
After conclusion of hearing and on perusal of the materials and documents available on record, the learned trial court below answered the vital issue Nos.4 and 5 in favour of the plaintiff by observing that, Chintamani Mohapatra being the common ancestor of the plaintiff and defendants had left the suit properties. After the death of Chintamani Mohapatra, Chuna Mohapatra and Uttara Mohapatra, the suit properties ultimately had devolved upon the plaintiff and defendants by way of succession and accordingly, the plaintiff and defendants being grand- daughters and grand-sons of Chintamani Mohapatra, they are the joint owners over the suit schedule properties having their equal share therein, i.e. 1/8th share each, because the suit properties have not been partitioned through metes and bound partition among them. For which, the suit properties are liable for partition. On the basis of the said findings and observations made by learned trial court below in issue No.4 and 5, the learned trial court decreed the suit vide C.S. No.427 of 2007 on contest against the defendant Nos.1, 3 and 4 preliminarily for partition entitling the plaintiff and defendants 1/8th share each from the suit schedule properties vide judgment and decree dated 31.08.2012 and 06.09.2012 respectively.
10. The defendant Nos.1, 3 and 4 challenged the same by preferring the 1st Appeal under Section 96 read with Order-41 and Rule-1 of the C.P.C. vide RAF No.173 of 2012 being the appellants against the plaintiff, defendant No.2 and defendant Nos.5, 6 and 7 by arraying them // 7 // as respondents in order to nullify the said judgment and decree passed by the leaned trial court below.
After hearing from both the sides and on perusal of the materials and documents available on record, the learned 1st appellate court passed the judgment of the said RFA No.173 of 2012 on dated 19.02.2015 and allowed that RFA No.173 of 2012 in part and modified / altered / reduced the shares of the plaintiff and respondent Nos.5, 6 and 7 each from 1/8th to ¼0th share each and increased/enhanced the shares of the defendant Nos.1 to 4 each from 1/8th to 1/5th from and out of the suit properties by assigning the reasons in Para No.14 of the judgment of the said RFA No.173 of 2012 that, as the suit properties were the self-acquired properties of their common ancestor, i.e., Chintamani Mohapatra, who was their grand-father, then after his death, the suit properties had devolved upon the surviving members of the joint family of the plaintiff and defendants including the widow of Chintamani Mohapatra along with their widow mother. So, only after the death of the widow of Chintamani Mohapatra and widow mother of the plaintiff and defendants, entire suit properties became joint family properties of the plaintiff and defendants. Therefore, the daughters of Jagannath Mohapatra, i.e. plaintiff and defendant Nos.5 to 7 would be entitled to succeed the interest of their father Jagannath Mohapatra along with defendant Nos.1 to 4, for which, the defendant Nos.1 to 4 being the sons of Jagannath Mohapatra would be entitled to 1/5th share each and 1/5th share of Jagannath Mohapatra would devolve equally upon the plaintiff and defendants. So, the plaintiff and defendant Nos.5 to 7 are entitled to 1/40th share each. Because, such devolution or dispossession of property having already taken place by virtue of law, which was in existence prior to the amendment of Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, i.e., prior to // 8 // 09.09.2005 and such devolution creates vested rights in the legal heirs, which cannot be reopened after coming into force of 2005 amendment.
11. The plaintiff and defendant Nos.5, 6 and 7 (those were the respondent Nos.1, 3, 4 and 5 in the 1st appeal vide R.F.A. No.173 of 2012) challenged the above judgment of the 1st appeal passed in R.F.A. No.173 of 2012 preferring this 2nd appeal for the confirmation of the judgment and decree of the learned trial court below.
12. This 2nd appeal was admitted by formulating the substantial of law, i.e. whether the lower appellate court, i.e., the 1st appellate court has erred in law allotting shares to the parties by applying the proviso of Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 as it is stand prior to the Amendment of Act of 2005, when the properties in the hands of Chintamani Mohapatra were his self-acquired properties and on his death, it is to be succeeded by his Class-I heirs as provided in the schedule of the Act?
In order to answer the above substantial question of law framed in this Second Appeal, it is pertinent to discuss about the manner of devolution of the suit properties upon the parties as per law.
13. It is the undisputed case of the parties that, all the suit properties were the self-acquired properties of their grand-father Chintamani Mohapatra and after his death, the said properties have devolved upon them (parties).
14. The case of the contesting defendant Nos.1, 3 and 4, i.e., three grandsons of Late Chintamani Mohapatra is that, they (defendant Nos.1 to 4) are the owners of the entire suit properties to the exclusion of the plaintiff and defendant Nos.5, 6 and 7 through one un-probated registered WILL bearing No.19 dated 28.09.1975 vide Ext.-A said to have been executed by Chintamani Mohapatra in their favour.
// 9 // The above stands of the defendant Nos.1, 3 and 4 regarding their ownership over the entire suit schedule properties on the basis of the above will vide Ext.A has already been negatived/discarded by the learned courts below and the said findings of the learned courts below regarding non-creation of any right through that un-probated will vide Ext-A in their favour has already been reached in its finality due to non- challenge of that part of findings of the learned courts below by the defendant Nos.1 to 4 in this 2nd appeal.
Such findings of the learned courts below that, an un-probated will like Ext.A shall not create any right relating to the properties involved therein in favour of the so-called beneficiaries thereof has already been clarified by this Hon'ble Courts in ratio of the decision reported in 2010(I) OLR 508 : Smt. Aparna Dhir Singh vrs. Debendra Nath Jenamani and two others by relying upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in AIR 1962 (S.C.) 1471 : Hem Nolini Judah vrs. Mrs. Isoline Sarobasini Bose and others that, "Indian Succession Act 1925--Section 213 - Section 213 will be a bar to any right being claimed by a person under a will whether as a plaintiff or as a defendant unless Probate or Letters of administration of the WILL have been obtained."
It is the settled propositions as per Mitakhsyara School of Hindu law that, properties inherited from father and grand-father shall be called as ancestral properties of the grand-sons and grand-daughters.
15. When the claim of ownership of defendant nos.1 to 4 over the suit properties through on un-probated will vide Ext.A has become inacceptable, then at this juncture, all the suit properties left by // 10 // Chintamani Mohapatra have become the ancestral properties of his grand-sons and grand-daughters, i.e. plaintiff and defendants.
So in order to determine (carve out) the shares of the parties in the suit properties, it is pertinent to discuss the relevant provisions of law envisaged in Sections 8, 9 and 15 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956.
Hindu Succession Act, 1956--Section 8-- General rules of Succession in the Case of Males:- The property of a male Hindu dying intestate shall devolve according to the provisions of this Chapter:-
(a) Firstly, upon the heirs, being the relatives specified in class-
I of the Schedule.
(b) x x xx
(c) x x xx
(d) x x xx
Section-9 - order of succession among heirs in the schedule:-
Among the heirs specified in the schedule, those in Class-I shall take simultaneously and to the exclusion of all other heirs;
xx xx xx xx xx xx xx Section-15-Genral rules of succession in the case of female Hindus:-
(i) The property of a female Hindu dying intestate shall devolve according to the rules set out in Section-16 :
(a) firstly upon the sons and daughters (including the children of any of pre-deceased son or daughter) and the husband.
(b) xxxxx
(c) xxxxx
// 11 //
(d) xxxxx
(e) xxxxx
16. In view of the above noted provisions of law in Sections 8 and 9 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, after the death of Chintamani Mohapatra in the year 1979, on the basis of the undisputed genealogy indicated in Para No.3 of this judgment, in first phase (first chance), the suit properties left by him devolved upon his widow wife, i.e., Chuna Mohapatra, plantiff and defendants (those are eight in numbers as sons and daughters of the predeceased son, i.e., Jagannath) along with Uttara Mohapatra (widow wife of the predeceased son, i.e., Jagannath) according to the Class-I of the schedule of the above Act, 1956..
17. Therefore, in the 1st phase after the death of Chitamani Mohapatra, Chuna Mohapatra, Uttara Mohapatra along with the plaintiff and defendants being ten in numbers in total were entitled to equal share each, i.e., 1/10th share each from the suit properties, by coming within the category of Class-I of the schedule.
18. Then in the 2nd phase, after the death of Chuna Mohapatra (widow wife of the Chintamani Mohapatra) in the year 1981, her 1/10th share had devolved upon the children for her predeceased son, i.e., upon the plaintiff and defendants equally as per Section 15(a) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. As the plaintiff and defendants are in total 8(eight) in numbers, for which, due to the devolution 1/10th share of Chuna Mohapatra upon them equally, the share of each of the plaintiff and defendants became 1/10th + 1/80th =9/80th share each in the suit properties.
19. In the 3rd and last phase, when the mother of the plaintiff and defendants, i.e. Uttara Mohapatra expired in the year 2003, 1/10th share left by her in the suit properties devolved upon her children, i.e. plaintiff // 12 // and defendants equally as per Section 15(a) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. So due to the devolution of 1/10th share of Uttara Mohapatra upon the plaintiff and defendants equally, those are eight (8) in numbers, the share of each of the plaintiff and defendants became 9/80th + 1/80th =10/80, i.e. 1/8th each in the suit schedule properties.
20. Now, it is to be seen, whether the reduction of shares of the plaintiff and defendant Nos.5, 6 and 7 (those are the grand-daughters of Chintamani Mohapatra and sisters of defendant Nos.1 to 4) from 1/8th to 1/40th by the learned 1st appellate court below in the judgment of RFA No.173 of 2012 is sustainable under law.
21. The basis/reason of reduction of share of the plaintiff and defendant Nos.5 to 7 from 1/8th to 1/40th has been indicated by the learned 1st appellate court in para-14 of the judgment of RFA No.173 of 2012 by placing reliance in the ratio of the decisions of the Hon'ble Courts and Apex Court in the case of Brij Narain Aggarwal vrs. Anup Kumar Goyal and others : reported in AIR 2007 (Delhi) 254, in the case of Smt. Barirathi and others vrs. S. Manivanan and another : reported in AIR 2008 (Madras) 250 and in the case of G. Sesar vrs. Geetha and others : reported in 2009(I) OLR (SC) 957, (2009) 6 SCC 99. G. Sesar vrs. Geetha and others stating that, as the original owner of the suit properties, i.e, Chintamani Mohapatra (who was the grand-father of the plaintiff and defendants) had expired in the year 1979 and by that time the father of the plaintiff and defendants, i.e. Jagannath Mohapatra was not alive and as by that time there was no amendment to the provisions of Section 6 of Hindu Succession Act, 1956 for making the daughters as coparceners providing equal share with that of their brothers and as after the death of Chintamani Mohapatra in the year 1979, succession had already opened, for which, the daughters of his predeceased son, i.e., plaintiff and defendants 5 to 7 are only entitled to succeed the interest of // 13 // 1/5th share of their deceased father Jagannath Mohapatra along with their brothers on the basis of notional partition as per Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, which was before Amendment. "Therefore, the share of the plaintiff and defendant Nos.5 to 7 is 1/40th each in the suit properties, but not 1/8th, as there was devolution of the properties in the year 1979 after the death of Chintamani Mohapatra prior to the amendment of Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 in the year 2005 and the said devolution cannot be reopened after coming into force of 2005 amendment. For which, the learned trial court has gone wrong in recognizing 1/8th interest of the plaintiff. So, the plaintiff and defendant Nos.5 to 7 are entitled to 1/40th share each and the defendant Nos.1 to 4 being the sons of Jagannath Mohapatra are entitled to 1/5th share each from the suit properties."
22. The above findings and observations made by the learned 1st appellate court in Para No.14 of the impugned judgment passed in RFA No.173 of 2012 that, as the father of the four daughters, i.e., plaintiff and defendant Nos.5 to 7 had expired prior to the amendment of Section 6 of Hindu Succession Act, i.e., prior to 2005, for which, they are not entitled to equal share in the suit properties with that of their brothers, i.e., defendant Nos.1 to 4 are not at all acceptable under law.
23. Because, in a three Judges Bench decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in 2020(II) CLR-83 : Viruta Sharma vrs. Rakesh Sharma and others (decided on 11.08.2020) resolving the conflicting verdicts rendered in earlier two Judges Bench judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court between Rakesh and others vrs. Phulvanti and others, and Damanna @ Sumansurpur and another vrs. Aman and others and after considering the amended provisions of Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (which was amended vide Amendment Act of 2005) it has been held and clarified as under:-
// 14 // "Hindu Succession Act, 1956 Section 6 (as amended in the year 2005 vide Amendment Act, 2005)--coparcenery depends on birth, but not on death. Amended Act of Section 6 of Hindu Succession Act, 1956 confer status of coparcener on daughter borne before or after amendment in same manner as son with same rights and liabilities. Since right of daughter in coparcenery is by birth, it is not necessary that, father/coparcener should be living as on 09.09.2005. So coparcener and daughter do not need to alive as on date of amendment. It is not necessary that, there should be a living coparcener or father as on date of amendment, to whom, the daughter would succeed. The daughter would step into coparcenary as that of a son by taking birth before or after the Amended Act of 2005."
24. So, in view of the above clarified propositions of law relating to the applicability of the amended provisions of Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (as amended vide Amendment Act of 2005), in a suit for partition like the present suit at hand, the daughters, i.e., plaintiff and defendant Nos.5 to 7 each would inherit equal share as that of the sons, i.e. defendant Nos.1 to 4 in the ancestral properties and whether the date of death of their father before or after the date of amendment to Section 6 of the Act, 1956 would be irrelevant.
25. Even the marriage of the daughters' prior to the Amendment of Section 6 of Hindu Succession Act, 1956 cannot debar them from claiming equal right with that of their brothers.
"When a son continues to be a son both before and after marriage like-wise a daughter continues to be a daughter before and after her marriage. This relationship of a daughter is not affected either in fact or in law upon marriage. Marriage does not bring about a severance of the relationship between a father and mother and their son or between parents and their daughter. These relationships are not governed or defined by marital status. Marriage of the daughters cannot be taken as a ground to define and exclude them from getting equal shares with that of // 15 // their brothers. Therefore, exclusion of daughters from getting equal share with that of their brothers purely on the ground of marriage would constitute an impermissible discrimination and be violative of Articles-14 and 15 of the Constitution of India, 1950."
26. When, as per the discussions and observations made above, the original owner in the suit schedule properties, i.e., Chintamani Mohapatra died intestate (as the so-called will vide Ext.A said to have been executed by him has been held to be unused for any purpose due to non- probatation of the same) and when no partition of the suit properties was effected before 20.12.2004, then the plaintiff and defendant Nos.5 to 7 being his grand-daughters(daughters of his predeceased son Jagannath) each are entitled to equal share as that of their brothers, i.e. defendant Nos.1 to 4 under both the ways as discussed above, i.e. either through the application of Section 8, 9 and 15 of Hindu Succession Act, 1956 or through the application of Section 6 of Hindu Successions Act, 1956 (as amended vide Act of 2005). For which, the findings and observations made by the learned 1st appellate in RFA No.173 of 2012 reversing the findings of the learned trial court below altering/modifying the shares of the plaintiff and defendant Nos.5 to 7 from 1/8th share each to 1/40th share each on the basis of wrong interpretation of the provisions of Hindu Succession Act, 1956 before and after Amendment (as amended in 2005) as per the clarifications made above cannot be sustainable under law.
27. As such, there is justification under law for making interference with the findings and observations made by the learned 1st appellate court in the impugned judgment through this 2nd appeal filed by the appellants (plaintiff and defendant nos.5 to 7).
Therefore, after disregarding the findings and observations made by the learned 1st appellate court in the judgment of RFA No.173 of 2012 // 16 // relating to the shares of the parties from the suit schedule properties, it is held that, the findings of the leaned trial court below in that respect is confirmed.
28. So for the reasons stated above, there is merit in this 2nd appeal filed by the appellants.
Therefore, the 2nd appeal filed by the appellants is allowed on contest, but without cost. The impugned judgment and decree passed in RFA No.173 of 2012 by the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Cuttack(1st appellate court) are set aside. The judgment and decree passed by the learned trial court below on 31.08.2012 and 06.09.2012 respectively in C.S. No.427 of 2007 are confirmed.
( A.C. Behera ) Judge Orissa High Court, Cuttack The 29th of September, 2023/ Jagabandhu, P.A. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: JAGABANDHU BEHERA Designation: Secretary-in-Charge Reason: Authentication Location: OHC, CUTTACK Date: 29-Sep-2023 17:03:41