The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK RSA No.386 of 2010 Bidusa Patel ..... Janmajaya Patel (dead) and others -versus- ..... Appellant(s) Represented By Mr.R.K.Mohanty,Sr.Advocate. Ms.S.Mohanty,Advocate Respondent(s) Represented By Mr.U.K.Samal,Advocate Mr.A.Mohanty,Advocate for PLR R-3 CORAM:
Legal Reasoning
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANDA CHANDRA BEHERA Order No. 08.
Decision
ORDER 08.04.2024 I.A. Nos.408, 409 & 410 of 2022 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual /Physical Mode). 2. These three I.As. have been filed on behalf of the appellant for substitution of the LRs of the respondent No.3. 3. The LRs of the deceased respondent No.3 have already made their appearance through advocate M/s. Animesh Mohanty & his associates. 4. 5. Therefore, the above three I.As. are allowed. Accordingly, the order of abatement passed against respondent No.3 is set aside and delay in filing the I.A. for substitution of LRs of the deceased respondent No.3 is condoned. 6. Therefore, LRs of the deceased respondent No.3 be substituted in her place. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant is directed to file the consolidated cause title of the appeal memo incorporating the names of the LRs of the deceased respondent No.3 after serving copy thereof on the learned counsel for the respondents. 8. Registry is directed to incorporate the names of the LRs of the deceased respondent No.3 in the cause title of the appeal memo. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant is also directed to serve the copy of the appeal memo on the learned counsel for the LRs of the respondent No.3. 10. Accordingly, the above three I.As. are disposed of finally. ( A.C. Behera ) Judge RSA No.386 of 2010 1. Learned counsel for the appellant filed a memo stating that, respondent No.1(b) has died without any issue, for which, question of substitution of the LRs of the respondent No.1(b) does not arise. 2. Therefore, registry is directed to make an endorsement against the name of the respondent No.1(b) as dead. ( A.C. Behera ) Judge I.A. Nos.1328, 1329 & 1330 of 2023 1. These three I.As. have been filed on behalf of the appellant for substitution of the LRs of the respondent No.1(a). 3. As the LRs of the deceased respondent No.1(a) have already made their appearance, for which, there is no impediment under law to allow these above three I.As. 4. Hence, the above three I.As. are allowed. 5. Accordingly, the order of abatement passed against respondent No.1(a) is set aside and delay in filing the I.A. for substitution of LRs of the deceased respondent No.1(a) is condoned. 6. Therefore, LRs of the deceased respondent No.1(a) be substituted in his place. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant is directed to file the consolidated cause title of the appeal memo incorporating the names of the LRs of the deceased respondent No.1(a) after serving copy thereof on the learned counsel for the respondents. 8. Registry is directed to incorporate the names of the LRs of the deceased respondent No.1(a) in the cause title of the appeal memo. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant is also directed to serve the copy of the appeal memo on the learned counsel for the LRs of the respondent No.1(a). 10. Therefore, the above three I.As. are disposed of finally. 11. Learned counsel for the LRs of respondent Nos.3 and 1(a) admitted about the service of the copy of the appeal memo on him along with consolidated Cause Title of the appeal memo. ( A.C. Behera ) Judge R.S.A. No.386 of 2010 & I.A. No.331 of 2024 1. Joint written compromise petition in the form of this I.A. No.331 of 2024 has been filed by the parties under Order 23 Rule 3 read with Section 151 of the CPC, 1908 praying for disposing of the Second Appeal vide R.S.A. No.386 of 2010 (from which this I.A. has arisen) on the basis of their compromise and to form their joint compromise petition as a part of judgment and decree of the Second Appeal vide R.S.A. No.386 of 2010. 2. Learned counsels of the parties are present and submitted for disposing of this Second Appeal vide R.S.A. No.386 of 2010 on the basis of their joint written compromise petition filed through this I.A. No.331 of 2024 under Order 23 Rule 3 read with Section 151 of the CPC, 1908 Perused the joint written compromise petition of this I.A. vide I.A. No.331 of 2024 of the parties, in which all the parties to the Second Appeal vide R.S.A. No.386 of 2010 have signed and they have been identified by their respective learned counsels. 3. After hearing from the learned counsels of the parties and on perusal of their joint written compromise petition vide this I.A. No.331 of 2024, I am satisfied that, the joint written compromise petition filed by the parties in the form of this I.A. No.331 of 2024 is lawful and there is no impediment under law to dispose of this Second Appeal vide R.S.A. No.386 of 2010 on the basis of the aforesaid joint written compromise of the parties. 4. Therefore, this Second Appeal vide R.S.A. No.386 of 2010 is required to be disposed of finally on the basis of the joint written compromise petition of the parties vide this I.A. No.331 of 2024 and the terms of compromise of this I.A. No.331 of 2024 shall do form part of the decree of the Second Appeal vide R.S.A. No.386 of 2010. 5. Accordingly, the Second Appeal vide R.S.A. No.386 of 2010 is decreed on the basis of the compromise between the parties forming the joint compromise petition of the parties of this I.A. No.331 of 2024 as a part of the decree of the Second Appeal vide R.S.A. No.386 of 2010. As such, the terms of compromise made between the parties in their joint written compromise petition shall do form part of the decree of R.S.A. No.386 of 2010. Utkalika ( A.C. Behera ) Judge Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: UTKALIKA NAYAK Designation: Junior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 09-Apr-2024 15:55:13