Disposed

Manaswani Panda v. Puspanjali Panda

Orissa HC26 Sept 2022CMP/828/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

CMP filed to challenge order rejecting application to implead petitioner as necessary party in execution of decree granting death benefits to nominee. Court disposed of petition observing petitioner has no claim to benefits in current proceeding and may seek declaration via appropriate remedy.

What did the court decide?

CMP disposed of with observation that petitioners may work out remedy for declaration of wife's status for other reliefs.

Manaswani Panda Vs Puspanjali Panda — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Orissa HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CMP No. 828 OF 2022 Manaswani Panda and others …. Petitioners

¶2

…. Petitioners

¶3

Mr. Laxman Pradhan, Advocate

¶4

-versus-

¶5

Puspanjali Panda and other

¶6

…. Opp. Parties

¶7

CORAM: JUSTICE K.R. MOHAPATRA

ORDER

Order No.

26.09.2022

This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

¶13

Order dated 30^th June, 2022 (Annexure-4) passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Blliguda in Execution Proceeding No.02 of 2014 is under challenge in this CMP, whereby an application filed by the Opposite Party No.1 under Order 1 Rule 10 C.P.C. has been rejected.

¶14

Mr. Pradhan, learned counsel for the Petitioners submits that Smt. Puspanjali Panda-Opposite Party No.1 describing herself to be the widow of Arakhita Panda, filed C.S. No.48 of 2011 under Annexure-1 claiming death benefit of said Arakhita Panda, as his nominee. The suit was decreed vide judgment dated 9^th December, 2013 with the following order:

¶15

“ORDER

¶16

The suit is decreed on contest against the defendants but in the circumstances without cost. The plaintiff is declared as the sole nominee of her deceased husband Arakhita Panda who was serving as messenger under defendant No.1 and the defendants are directed to pay the entire amount to the plaintiff wherein the plaintiff has been the nominee of her deceased husband Arakhita Panda.”

¶17

Accordingly, the Opposite Party No.1 filed Execution Proceeding No.2 of 2014 for execution of the decree.

¶18

It is submitted by Mr. Pradhan, learned counsel that the Petitioner No.1 is the legally married wife of said Arakhita

¶19

Page 1 of 2

¶20

// 2 //

¶21

Panda. But without impleading her as a party, the suit was filed by Opposite Party No.1 describing herself to be the legally married wife of said Arakhita Panda. When the Petitioner No.1 came to know about the same, she filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10 C.P.C. before the executing Court to be impleaded as a party to the suit, which was rejected. He further submits that the Opposite Party No.1 had earlier filed Intest Case No.01 of 2005 before learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Balliguda claiming to be the legally married wife of said Arakhita Panda, but the same was dismissed on 27^th April, 2006 and confirmed by the appellate Court. As such, the C.S. No.48 of 2011 was not maintainable. Thus, the Petitioner is a necessary party to the execution proceeding. As such, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.

¶22

Upon hearing learned counsel for the Petitioner and on perusal of the record, it appears that the Petitioner No.1 claims herself to be the legally married wife of Arakhita Panda. Since a decree has been passed to release the death benefit of Arakhita Panda in favour of Opposite Party No.1 as she is his nominee, the Petitioner No.1 is not entitled to lay any claim over the death benefit of said Arakhita Panda in the said execution proceeding. 6. In that view of the matter, the CMP is disposed of with an observation that the Petitioners, if so advised, may work out their remedy in accordance with law for a declaration that she is the legally married wife of Arakhita Panda and for other reliefs. Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application.

¶23

(K.R. Mohapatra) Judge

¶24

¶25

Page 2 of 2

Manaswani Panda v. Puspanjali Panda

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manaswani Panda v. Puspanjali Panda

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

Raavi Chaya Rakshit Vs State of Orissa

V.Kamala Bai Vs State of Odisha

Feroz Khan Vs State of Odisha

Odisha Power Transmission Crop.Ltd. Vs Sanghamitra Biswal

Chandini Verma Vs Chairman and Md,Nesco,Balasore

Aswini Kumar Dash Vs Nilesh Kumar Ghodasara