Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (0.27 seconds)
Documents citing Jadumani Biswal vs Narayan Chandra Biswal (Deceased By ... on 21 October, 1982

Om Prakash Santuka vs Champalal Sethia And Anr. on 27 September, 1985

In appeal, subsequent facts after the order of acqoittal as revealed from the records were considered in 30(1970) C L T 271 (Jadumani Das v. Govind Biswal), 1975 C. L. R. (Cr,) 485 (Nora Dei v. Dama Naik and Ors.) and 1984 (1) O. L. R. 69 (supra) to determine the correctness of the order of acquittal. There are two decisions of this Court in which petitions for adjournment were fined in wrong Court.
Orissa High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sundarmani Bewa And Anr. Etc. vs Dasarath Parida (Deceased By L.R.) And ... on 2 March, 1988

2. In Civil Revision No. 169 of 1980, the trial court relying on the aforesaid decision of the Division Bench passed the order under Section 4(4) of the Act holding that the suit abated. The plaintiff filed the revision petition contending that the disputed property being Bagayat land which was not consolidate under the Act his suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession of the same was maintainable in the civil court and should have been adjudicated upon and decided without being affected by the provisions under Section 4(4) of the Act. The revision petitioner also raised the further question that the authorities under the Act have no power to record forcible possession of the land being with the defendants in the remarks column of the Land Registers. My learned brother R.C. Patnaik, J. before whom the revision petition came up initially considering the importance of the question whether a suit for any relief which the authorities under the Act have no jurisdiction to grant can be held to have abated simply because consolidation operation is going on in the area, directed the case to be placed before a Division Bench for hearing. Thereafter the case came up before the Division Bench of Justice P. C. Misra and Justice G. B. Patnaik who in their judgment dated 13-11-84 entertained doubt about the correctness of the decision in Jadumani Biswal's case (AIR 1983 Orissa 114) (supra) and directed the matter to be placed before a larger Bench for decision. That is how the case has come before this Bench.
Orissa High Court Cites 26 - Cited by 8 - D P Mohapatra - Full Document

Siba Prasad Dashson vs Kali Charan Dash on 1 March, 1984

3. It is not in dispute that the properties in respect of which the suit has been held by the trial Court to have abated come within the notification issued by the State Government under Section 3(1) of the Act. The question whether a suit pending in the Civil Court either at the stage of trial or appeal or revision abates under Section 4(4) of the Act has been the subject-matter of consideration in a large number of decisions of this Court. Shortly put, the ratio in the decided cases has been that if the subject-matter involved in the suit is available to be dealt with by the authorities under the special Act and the reliefs sought in the suit can be granted by the said authorities the suit pending in the Civil Court shall abate, vide (1982) 54 Cut LT 584 : (AIR 1983 Orissa 114), (Jadumani Biswal v. Narayan Chandra Biswal), (1983) 55 Cut LT 561, (Padma Charan Monanty v. Koili Bewa), AIR 1982 Orissa 218, (Prasanna Mali v. Raghumani Misra), (1984) 1 OLR 54, (Radhashyam Jana v. Jagannath Jena), (1984) 57 Cut LT 65, (Pranabhandhu Panu Ojha v. Bhikari Maharana Ojha). In the first case mentioned above the Division Bench took the view that if a suit abates, then the Consolidation Authorities must have jurisdiction to go into the question involved or conversely, if a matter can be gone into by the Consolidation Authorities, then a suit in respect of that matter must abate under Section 4(4). The test to be applied in determining the question whether a suit shall abate or not is whether the parties can get the real and effective relief from the Consolidation Authorities. In all these decisions emphasis has been given on the real and effective relief sought in the suit.
Orissa High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 2 - D P Mohapatra - Full Document

Sarat Chandra Patra And Anr. vs Saraswata Bidyapitha And Ors. on 29 October, 1984

It is fairly conceded by the learned counsel appearing for the opposite parties that in view of the decision of Division Bench of this Court in the case of 54 (1982) C. L. T. : Jadumani Biswal v. Narayan Chandra Biswal (dead), the ground stated in the impugned order that the suit land being homestead does not come within the ambit of Sections 4 and 51 of the Act is not sustainable. But this does not solve the entire problem in the case. As already noticed earlier the reliefs sought in the suit is for permanent injunction. In paragraph 9 of the plaint, the plaintiffs have categorically stated the urgent necessity of getting the relief of permanent injunction. From the records of the case it appears that an application for interim injunction was also filed and numbered as Misc. Case No. 130 of 1082. As such, it cannot be said that the relief of permanent injunction is unnecessary or redundant in the suit. The.
Orissa High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - D P Mohapatra - Full Document

Iswar Dehury vs Suchi Dei And Ors. on 16 October, 1984

3. Both Mr. J. K. Misra, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. S. S. Swain, appearing amicus curiae for the opposite parties at my request made their respective submissions based on Section 4 (4) of the Act. However, Section 4(4) has no application as the suit was instituted on 30-7-1979 after the notification under Section 3(1) of the Act. This is clear from the observation of the Division Bench of this Court in the case reported in (1982) 54 Cut LT 584 : (AIR 1983 Orissa 114) : Jadumani Biswal v. Narayan Chandra Biswal (dead) to the following effect :
Orissa High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 1 - Full Document
1