Appeal of 1994 arising from a 1988 suit; sole appellant died in 2022 and his legal representatives sought substitution after 692 days, learning of the proceeding only when intending to sell the property. The court refused to condone the long delay, rejected the limitation petition and dismissed the appeal as abated.
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
M.A. No.104 of 1994
…. Sri Raghunath Jena Appellant Mr. S.R. Pati, Advocate
-versus-
…. Bandari Krishnamurty Acharya and Respondents others
None
CORAM: JUSTICE B. P. ROUTRAY
ORDER
20.12.2024
Order No.
I.A. Nos.06 & 07 of 2024 and M.A. No.104 of 1994
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed Signed by: BASANTA KUMAR BARIK Designation: Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 20-Dec-2024 16:55:59
Page 1 of 2
( B.P. Routray) Judge
B.K. Barik
Signature Not Verified
Page 2 of 2
Digitally Signed Signed by: BASANTA KUMAR BARIK Designation: Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 20-Dec-2024 16:55:59
2 issues framed by the court
Should the 692-day delay in filing the substitution petition after the appellant's death be condoned?
Does the appeal survive or stand abated if substitution is refused?
Raghunath Jena
Bandari Krishnamurty Acharya
B.P. Routray
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
