Hemalata v. Pachei
Case brief
What is this about?
The High Court dismissed an appeal against a decree for recovery of money. The Court held the suit was not barred by limitation, found no evidence of fraud regarding sale deeds, and rejected the plea to stay proceedings due to another pending suit. The appeal was dismissed with no merit.
What did the court decide?
The appeal was dismissed. The impugned judgment and decree were set aside at the Subordinate Judge's instance only to be dismissed by this Court. Parties bear own cost.
What the court decided
HIGH COURT OF ORISSA: CUTTACK.
FIRST APPEAL NO. 121 OF 1990
From the judgment dated 28th April, 1983 and decree dated 5th May, 1983 passed by Sri P.K. Panigrahi, Subordinate Judge, Jajpur in M.S. No. 3 of 1981.
Hemalata Panda @ Dibya & others …… Appellants
-VersusKuntala Dei & others …… Respondents
For Appellants : Mr. Bhaktahari Mohanty, Senior Advocate M/s. D.P. Mohanty, R.K. Nayak, R.N. Panda & S.C. Mohanty.
For Respondents : M/s. P.K. Dhal, A. Deo, R.Ray, B.C. Ray & P.K. Mohapatra. (For R.Nos.1(a) to 1(g) Mr. B.B. Bhuyan (R. No.2)
------------------------------Date of Judgment : 06.04 .2021 -------------------------------
P R E S E N T:
THE HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE K.R. MOHAPATRA
Issues for consideration
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the suit is barred by limitation.
Whether the sale deeds are sham and fraudulent transactions.
Whether the learned trial court should have stayed proceedings under Section 10 CPC due to pendency of another suit.
Parties & counsel
- appellant
Hemalata Panda & others
- respondent
Kuntala Dei & others
Coram
K.R. Mohapatra
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court