Dismissed
Mukti v. Khaira
Orissa HCSA/222/1996
Case brief
AI extract
What is this about?
The appellant, a sole appellant who had died three years prior, was unable to proceed due to lack of response from legal representatives. The appeal was dismissed as abated on account of death and non-substitution.
What the court decided
AI extract
¶1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
¶2
S.A. No.222 of 1996
¶3
Mukti Dibya @ Panda (Since dead) Appellant
¶4
…. Mr.D.K. Mohapatra, Advocate -versus-
¶5
Khaira Sahoo & Others …. Respondents Mr. R. Biswal, Advocate
¶6
CORAM:
¶7
MR. JUSTICE D.DASH ORDER
¶8
Order No.
¶10
08.07.2022
¶11
- This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement (virtual/physical mode).
¶12
- Learned counsel for the Appellant submits that on receipt of the information that the sole Appellant has died three years back, attempts having been made to contact her legal representatives and relations, no such response has been received. He, therefore, expresses his inability to further pursue the Appeal.
Parties & counsel
AI extract
- appellant
Mukti Dibya @ Panda (Since dead)
- respondent
Khaira Sahoo
- respondent
Others
Coram
AI extract
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court