Allowed

Subala Mahanty v. Ajay Ku.Sahu

Orissa HC7 Nov 2016WP(C)/2086/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition under Article 227 challenged an order in a partition suit that denied added parties the right to cross-examine witnesses. The Court found the order caused miscarriage of justice and quashed the specific part denying cross-examination, directing expeditious disposal.

What did the court decide?

The order denying the right to cross-examine witnesses was quashed. The trial court is directed to dispose of the suit within eight months.

04. 07.11.2016 The petitioners in this application under Article -227 of the Constitution seek quashment of an order dated 24.03.2007 passed by learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Balasore in C.S. No. 48 of 2002.

The sole grievance in the present application is that, the petitioners having been all owed to be added as parties to the above suit for partition finding that they are necessary pa rties to the suit for being given due opportunities to stake their claim with regard to their entitlement over the suit properties in accordance with law, their right to cross-examine the witnesses examined till then in the suit has been foreclosed.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in the event this order is allowed to stand, it would make no sense as these petitioners would not be able to test the truthfulness of the version of the witnesses already examined by the plaintiffs who had purposely not made these petitioners parties so as to deprive these petitioners of their legal entitlement in so far as the suit properties is concerned. So, he contends that both the parts of the order are highly in conflict in one another.

However, carefully gone through the order in the facts and circumstances of the case, I find that the above submission merits acceptance. Therefore, this Court finding that by passin g of such order whereby the petitioners have been denied with the right to cross-examine the w itnesses examined so far as there has been causation of miscarriage of justice quashes the sai d part.

In view of above, the writ application stands allowed. No order as to cost. However, viewing the age of the suit, the trial court is directed to dispose of the suit as expeditiously as possible preferably within eight months from the date of communication of this order or production of its certified copy whichever is earlier.

Subala Mahanty v. Ajay Ku.Sahu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Subala Mahanty v. Ajay Ku.Sahu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M.C.,R.U.P.School Vs State

Prasanna Vs Arjuna

Lipika Das Vs State of Odisha

Rukmani Nayak Vs Siddharth Sekhar

Prasanna Dandsena Vs Bhagawatia Saha

Priyadarsani Singha Vs State of Odisha