ASHOKA INDUSTRIES LTD Vs. HARIBANDHU DAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two civil revision petitions arise out similar set of facts involving the same parties and are accordingly being disposed of by this common judgment.

(2.) As far as CVREV No.179 of 1995 is concerned, the Petitioner challenges an order dtd. 1/8/1995 whereby the learned Additional District Judge, Bhubaneswar (ADJ) recalled an earlier order passed by on 9/12/1994 admitting the Petitioner's Title Appeal No.58 of 1994 and rejecting the appeal as being "incomplete, defective and incompetent" in the absence of a copy of decree on the date, the same was presented and as the provision of Order XX Rule- 6A CPC is also not applicable on the date the appeal is admitted." In this revision petition, which was admitted on 14/8/1995 status quo was directed to be maintained regarding the suit property. Subsequently, on 15/9/1995 the proceedings in Execution Case No. 87 of 1995 in the Court of Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Bhubaneswar was stayed until further orders. By another order dtd. 18/9/1995 the earlier status quo order was vacated in view of the stay of the execution proceedings. That interim order has continued ever since.

(3.) As far as Civil Revision Petition No.274 of 1995 is concerned, it challenges an order dtd. 4/8/1995 passed by the learned ADJ dismissing the subsequent appeal being T.A. No.32 of 1995 filed by the Petitioner challenging the judgment and decree dated 16th November and 13/11/1994 passed by the Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Bhubaneswar in O.S. No.223 of 1982-I dismissing T.A. No.32 of 1995 for non-filing of the judgment and decree. In the said civil revision No.274 of 1995 this Court passed an order dtd. 24/2/1995 recording the submission of learned counsel for the Petitioner that he seeks to convert the petition to a writ petition. However, it appears that the said prayer was not allowed. On 6/7/2017 a petition for substituting Opposite Party No.2 was allowed.