Orissa High Court
Satyaranjan Kar & Another vs Unknown on 4 August, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
RSA No.78 of 2012
Satyaranjan Kar & Another .... Appellants
Mr.S.K.Dash,Advocate
-versus-
.... Respondents
Nanigopal Pradhan & 12 Others
Mr. G.Mukherjee, Sr. Advocate
CORAM:
MR. JUSTICE D.DASH
ORDER
04.08.2021
Order No. I.A. No.9 of 2020
7. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement
(Virtual/Physical Mode).
2. This is an application for substitution of the legal
representatives of Appellant No.1 who is stated to have died
on 31.10.2019.
3. Heard.
4. Considering the submissions made and on going
through the averments taken in the petition, the prayer, as
advanced; is allowed and the legal representatives of
Appellant No.1, as mentioned in the petition, are hereby
substituted as Appellant No.1(a) to 1(c).
The I.A is accordingly disposed of.
(D.Dash)
Judge
// 2 //
Misc. Case No.688, 686 & 687 of 2015 : (A)
Misc. Case No.797, 796 & 795 of 2015 : (B)
8. 1. The Appellants have filed the first set of applications
under Item 'A' for substitution of the legal representatives of
Respondent No.3 (Defendant No.3).
2. They have also filed second set of applications under
Item 'B' for substitution of the legal representatives of
Respondent No.8 (Defendant No.6).
3 Learned counsel for the Appellants and learned counsel
for the Respondent Nos.1 and 2 are present.
4. In course of hearing and on perusal of the judgments
passed by the courts below, it is seen that the unsuccessful
Defendant Nos.1 and 2 are the Appellants before this Court
and they being Defendant Nos.1 and 2 before the Trial Court
as also the Appellants before the First Appellate Court have
suffered from the judgment and decree passed by both the
court, which they seek to assail in this Second Appeal which
has been admitted on 26.08.2014 upon formulation of
substantial questions of law.
It is further seen that the Plaintiffs questioned the
registered sale deed executed by Defendant No.3 in favour of
Defendant Nos.1 and 2 in saying that the Defendant No.3 had
no right, title and interest to sell the said property involved
// 3 //
under the deed. They had also simultaneously stated that they
are rightful owners of the suit land having purchased the same
from the rightful owner (Defendant No.5) under the registered
sale deed. So, here it is a dispute between the purchaser of the
property in question from Defendant No.5 in one hand and the
purchasers of the same property from Defendant No.3 on the
other. It may be stated here that the Defendant No.5 having
appeared in the suit has filed written statement jointly with
Defendant No.1 and 2 supporting their claim in favour of
sustaining the sale deed executed by him. Defendant No.5 has
however not filed any written statement in the suit.
The First Appeal being carried out by the unsuccessful
Defendant Nos.1 and 2; before that Court neither Defendant
No.3 nor Defendant No.5 appeared therein to contest.
5. At this stage, in view of above position coming to
surface, learned counsel for the Appellants does not want to
press these applications under Item "A" and "B" as no need
stands for substitution of the legal representatives of deceased
Respondent No.3 and 8 (Defendant No.3 and 5) and the
Appeal according to him can proceed for hearing on merit for
its disposal in accordance with law.
6. Accepting the above submission, all those applications
stand disposed of as not pressed.
(D.Dash)
Judge
// 4 //
RSA No.78 of 2012
9. On the consent of the learned counsel for the Parties, let
the matter be listed on 3.9.2021.
A consolidated copy of the cause title be filed by the
learned counsel for the Appellant in the meantime.
Issue urgent certified copy as per rules.
(D.Dash)
Judge
Basu
