The High Court dismissed the complaint seeking to set aside a lower court order allowing the impleadment of a coparcener (Opposite Party No.10) in a pending partition suit. The Court found no merit in the complaint as the coparcener had a legitimate say in the matter.
The complaint (CMP) was dismissed as being devoid of merit.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CMP NO. 17 OF 2023
Mahendra Behera
…. Petitioner
Mr. Shantanu Kumar Panda, Advocate
-versus-
Madan Behera and others
…. Opp. Parties
CORAM:
JUSTICE K.R. MOHAPATRA
ORDER
Order No.
01.02.2023
by learned Senior Civil Judge, Balasore in C.S. No. 985/468 of 2016-I is under challenge in this CMP, whereby an application under Order 1 Rule 10 C.P.C. filed by Opposite Party No.10 has been allowed.
Page 1 of 2
// 2 //
C.P.C. 5. Accordingly, the CMP being devoid of any merit stands dismissed.
Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application.
bks
(K.R. Mohapatra) Judge
Page 2 of 2
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Trial Court committed an error in allowing an application for impleadment under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC filed by a coparcener in a partition suit.
Whether the Petitioner, being a coparcener, has challenged the status or impleadment of Opposite Party No.10.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Mahendra Behera
Madan Behera and others
K.R. Mohapatra
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
