Satyaban Padhi And Others vs Commissioner Of Endowment
2023 Latest Caselaw 7802 Ori

                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

                               W.P.(C) No. 7862 of 2023

            Satyaban Padhi and others              ....            Petitioners

                                    Mr. Manmaya Kumar Dash, Advocate

                                        -versus-

            Commissioner of Endowment,             ....     Opposite Parties
            BBSR and others

                                           Ms. P. Naidu, Advocate
                                           Mr. Gopinath Mishra, Advocate



                     CORAM:
                                JUSTICE ARINDAM SINHA
                                JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MISHRA
                                       ORDER

19.07.2023 Order No.

3. 1. Mr. Dash, learned advocate appears on behalf of petitioners

and submits, impugned is judgment dated 30th November, 2022. He

submits, he represents those who are also in line of succession to be

appointed hereditary trustee but not considered. This happened by

omission to issue notice under order I rule 8 in Code of Civil

Procedure, 1908. That is required by law. He submits, he will rely on

view taken by this Court to substantiate the same.

// 2 //

2. Ms. Naidu, learned advocate appears on behalf of the

Commissioner and Mr. Mishra, learned advocate, for opposite party

no.5. Noticed opposite party nos.4 and 6 go unrepresented inspite of

good service.

3. We have briefly perused impugned judgment. We find,

petitioners before the Commissioner were widow and daughters of

Bhagaban Padhi, who was son of Kelu Charan Padhi, the declared

hereditary trustee. After demise of Kelu Charan Padhi, Bhagaban

Padhi applied for being declared but during pendency of the

proceeding, he died. Subsequent thereto sons of Bhagaban Padhi were

declared as hereditary trustees leaving out the widow and daughters.

Hence, they petitioned the Commissioner to be declared as such under

section 30 in Odisha Hindu Religious Endowments Act, 1951.

4. Petitioners are granted adjournment to demonstrate how they

can be aggrieved by impugned judgment on perversity of facts. Mr.

Dash submits, his clients had applied for intervention in the

proceeding culminating in impugned judgment but the application was

rejected. However, independent petition for declaration of their

hereditary trusteeship is pending. He files additional affidavit on leave

obtained and copies served.

// 3 //

5. List on 1st August, 2023.

6. Interim order to continue till next date of hearing.

(Arindam Sinha) Judge

(S.K. Mishra) Judge Sks

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SISIR KUMAR SETHI Designation: PERSONAL ASSISTANT Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT Date: 19-Jul-2023 18:34:56