Orissa High Court
Nigamananda Rath & Others vs Siba Narayan Pati (Dead) & Others on 16 April, 2025
ORISSA HIGH COURT : CUTTACK
R.S.A. No.386 of 2004
In the matter of an appeal under Section 100 C.P.C, 1908.
***
Nigamananda Rath & Others
… Appellants.
-VERSUS-
Siba Narayan Pati (dead) & Others … Respondents.
Counsel appeared for the parties:
For the Appellants : Mr. B. Panigrahi, Advocate.
For the Respondents : Mr. B. Das, Advocate.
P R E S E N T:
HONOURABLE
MR. JUSTICE ANANDA CHANDRA BEHERADate of Hearing : 07.04.2025 :: Date of Judgment : 16.04.2025
J UDGMENT
ANANDA CHANDRA BEHERA, J.–
1. This 2nd Appeal has been preferred against the
confirming Judgment.
R.S.A. No.386 of 2004 Page 1 of 21
2. The predecessor of the appellants in this 2nd Appeal i.e.
Ambika Patel was the defendant No.1 before the Trial Court in
the suit vide T.S. No.30 of 1981 and Appellant before the First
Appellate Court in the 1st Appeal vide T.A. No.57 of 1997.
After the death of the defendant No.1 Ambika Patel
during the stage of 1st Appeal, her successors were
substituted in her place as respondent Nos.1(a) to 1(c).
The predecessor of the respondent Nos.1(a) to 1(g) in this
2nd Appeal i.e. Siba Narayan Pati was the sole plaintiff before
the Trial Court in the suit vide T.S. No.30 of 1981 and
respondent No.1 before the First Appellate Court in the First
Appeal vide T.A. No.57 of 1997.
After the death of Siba Narayan Pati during the stage of
this 2nd Appeal, his successors have been substituted in his
place as respondent Nos.1(a) to 1(g).
Respondent Nos.2 to 38 in this 2nd Appeal were the
defendant Nos.2 to 38 before the Trial Court in the suit vide
T.S. No.30 of 1981 and respondent Nos.2 to 38 before the 1 st
Appellate Court in the First Appeal vide T.A. No.57 of 1997.
R.S.A. No.386 of 2004 Page 2 of 21
3. The suit of the plaintiff vide T.S. No.30 of 1981 was a
suit for declaration and for setting aside the Judgment and
Decree passed in T.S. Nos.17/71, 59/74,19/75 & S.C.C.
No.7/3 of 1975.
4. As per the case of the plaintiff, Krushna Pati, Keshaba
Pati, Madhaba Pati and Jadab Pati are the four sons of Ghana
Pati. Ghana Pati died long back.
The first son of Ghana Pati i.e. Krushna Pati died in the
year 1952. The 2nd Son of Ghana Pati i.e. Keshaba Pati died in
the year 1971 and the 3rd Son of Ghana Pati i.e. Madhab Pati
died in the year 1972 leaving behind his son Jogeswar Pati.
Jogeswar Pati died leaving behind his widow wife
Bhargabi Pati and one son i.e. Siba Narayan Pati.
The 4th son of Ghana Pati i.e. Jadab Pati died in the
year1973.
The suit properties originally belonged to the
predecessors of the defendant Nos.1 and 2. The predecessor of
the defendant Nos.1 and 2 had mortgaged the suit properties
in favour of Krushna Pati, Keshaba Pati, Madhab Pati and
Jadab Pati on dated 23.01.1925 and 28.09.1927 for
R.S.A. No.386 of 2004 Page 3 of 21
Rs.10,000/- and Rs.3,000/- respectively. When the
ancessestors of the defendant Nos.1 and 2 did not repay the
mortgaged amount, then, Krushna Pati, Keshaba, Madhab
Pati and Jadab Pati filed a suit vide T.S. No.32 of 1940 against
the predecessor of defendant Nos.1 & 2 for a decree of
foreclosure in the Court of Sub-Judge, Sambalpur and the
said suit was decreed in favour of Krushna Pati, Keshaba Pati,
Madhab Pati and Jadab Pati. The said suit vide T.S. No.32 of
1940 was also decreed finally in favour of Krushna Pati,
Keshaba, Jadab Pati and Madhab Pati and possession thereof
was delivered to them through Execution of the decree of the
said suit vide Execution Case No.36 of 1943 on dated
04.04.1944.
After getting the suit properties through execution since
04.04.1944, the 4 brothers i.e Krushna Pati, Keshaba,
Madhab Pati and Jadab Pati possessed the suit properties
being the owners of the same and mutated the same to their
names and after mutation, they paid the rent of the suit
properties to the Government in their names obtaining proper
rent receipts. Thereafter, they (Krushna Pati, Keshaba,
R.S.A. No.386 of 2004 Page 4 of 21
Madhab Pati and Jadab Pati) distributed the suit properties
among them having 1/4th share in each.
The defendant Nos.1 and 2 filed suits vide T.S. No.17 of
1971, T.S. No.59 of 1974, T.S. No.19 of 1975 and S.C.C.
No.7/3 of 1975 against some members of the branch of
Krushna Pati, Keshab Pati and Jadaba Pati in respect of the
suit properties for declaration of their right, title, interest over
the suit properties and for permanent injunction against them
without impleading any members of the branch of the plaintiff
and got the decrees in the said suits behind the back and
without the knowledge of the plaintiff. For which, the
Judgments and Decrees passed in the said suits in favour of
the defendant Nos.1 & 2 are not binding upon the plaintiff.
The plaintiff came to know about the said Judgments and
Decrees for the first time on 31.10.1975 in the settlement
camp at Bargarh and subsequently enquired about the same
and obtained the copies of the said decrees and filed the suit
vide T.S. No.30 of 1981 against the defendant Nos.1 and 2
arraying others as defendant Nos.3 to 38 as defendants
praying for declaration of his right, title and interest over the
R.S.A. No.386 of 2004 Page 5 of 21
suit properties and also to declare that, the Judgments and
Decrees passed in the suit vide .S. No.17 of 1971, T.S. No.59
of 1974, T.S. No.19 of 1975 and S.C.C. No.7/3 of 1975 are not
binding upon him and to set aside the said Judgments and
Decrees.
5. Having been noticed from the Trial Court in the suit vide
T.S. No.30 of 1981, the defendant No.1 contested the same by
filing her written statement denying the averments made by
the plaintiff in his plaint on the ground that, the suit of the
plaintiffs for setting aside the Judgments and Decrees passed
in T.S. No.17 of 1971, T.S. No.59 of 1974, T.S. No.19 of 1975
and S.C.C. No.7/3 of 1975 is barred by law of limitation.
Her specific stands were that, neither the plaintiff nor his
co-sharers had ever possessed the suit properties and likewise
neither the plaintiff nor his co-sharers had their any right,
title and interest over the same. The plaintiff had full
knowledge about the above 4 suits as well as result of the
same. For which, the plaintiff has no locus standie to
challenge the Judgments and Decrees passed in the above 4
said suits. They (defendant Nos.1 and 2) are all along in
R.S.A. No.386 of 2004 Page 6 of 21
possession over the suit properties since the time of their
forefathers and during major settlement, they had also
received draft Parcha in respect of the suit properties in their
favour on the basis of the order passed in Settlement Appeal
No.96 of 1976, for which, the suit of the plaintiff is liable to be
dismissed.
6. Basing upon the aforesaid pleadings and matters in
controversies between the parties, altogether 8 numbers of
issues were framed by the Trial Court in the suit vide T.S.
No.30 of 1981 and the said issues are:
ISSUES
1. Is there any cause of action for the suit?
2. Is the suit is barred by limitation?
3. If the defendant No.1 and 2 have perfected a title to the suit
property by adverse possession?
4. If the suit is barred by the principles of resjudicata?
5. If the plaintiff has any right, title, interest and possession in
respect of the suit land?
6. To what relief, if any?
7. In order to substantiate the aforesaid reliefs sought for
by the plaintiffs against the defendant Nos.1 and 2, the
plaintiffs examined 4 numbers of witnesses from his side
including him as P.W.1 and relied upon the documents vide
Ext.1 to 24.
R.S.A. No.386 of 2004 Page 7 of 21
On the contrary, in order to nullify/defeat the suit of the
plaintiffs, the defendant Nos.1 examined 3 witnesses on her
behalf and relied upon the documents vide Ext.A to N.
8. After conclusion of hearing and on perusal of the
materials, documents and evidence available in the record, the
Trial Court decreed the suit of the plaintiff vide T.S. No.30 of
1981 in part against the defendants as per its Judgment and
Decree dated 30.09.1997 & 20.10.1997 respectively and
declared that, the decrees passed in the suits vide T.S. No.17
of 1971, T.S. No.59 of 1974, T.S. No.19 of 1975 and S.C.C.
No.7/3 of 1975 are not binding upon him (plaintiff) and also
declared his 1/4th interest in the suit schedule properties
assigning the reasons that, plaintiff has cause of action for
filing of the suit. The suit of the plaintiff is not bared by the
law of limitation and the defendant Nos.1 and 2 have not
perfected their title over the suit properties through adverse
possession and the plaintiff has 1/4th interest in the suit
properties on the basis of the preliminary and final decree
passed in T.S. No.32 of 1940 in his favour in respect of the
suit properties, as the preliminary decree, final decree as well
R.S.A. No.386 of 2004 Page 8 of 21
as final order passed in Execution Case No.36 of 1943 have
not been set aside by the competent Court of Law and the
Judgments and Decrees passed in T.S. No.17 of 1971, T.S.
No.59 of 1974, T.S. No.19 of 1975 and S.C.C. No.7/3 of 1975
in favour of the defendant Nos.1 and 2 are not binding upon
the plaintiff, because, the said Judgments and Decrees were
passed without impleading the predecessor of the plaintiff or
the plaintiff as a party in the same.
9. On being dissatisfied with the aforesaid Judgment and
Decree passed by the Trial Court in the suit vide T.S. No.30 of
1981 in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants, the
defendant No.1 challenged the same by filing the 1st Appeal
vide T.A. No.57 of 1997 being the appellant against the
plaintiff and defendant No.2 & rest others arraying them as
respondents.
When during the pendency of the 1st Appeal, the
appellant (defendant No.1) expired, then, her LRs were
substituted in her place as Appellant Nos.1(a) to 1(c).
After hearing from both the sides, the First Appellate
Court dismissed to the First Appeal vide T.A. No.57 of 1997 of
R.S.A. No.386 of 2004 Page 9 of 21
the defendant No.1 on contest as per its Judgement and
Decree dated 23.07.2004 & 28.07.2004 respectively
concurring/accepting the findings & observations made by the
learned Trial Court in its Judgment and Decree.
10. On being aggrieved with the aforesaid Judgment and
Decree of the dismissal of the 1st Appeal vide T.A. No.57 of
1997 of the defendant No.1 passed by the 1st Appellate Court,
the LRs of the defendant No.1 challenged the same by
preferring this 2nd Appeal being the appellants against the
plaintiff and defendant Nos.2 to 38 arraying them as
respondents.
When, during the pendency of this 2nd Appeal, the
respondent No.1 (plaintiff Siba Narayan Pati) expired, then,
his LRs have been substituted in his place as respondent
Nos.1(a) to 1(g).
11. This 2nd Appeal was admitted on formulation of the
following substantial questions of law i.e.
I. Whether the Plaintiffs claim in the
instant suit is barred by Article 59 of the
Indian Limitation Act,
(a)When the Plaintiff’s unequivocal
case is that the impugned decrees
dtd. 17.4.72, 29.7.74, and 30.5.75
are to be set aside.
R.S.A. No.386 of 2004 Page 10 of 21
(b) When the co-sharers of the
present plaintiff were parties to the
said suit.
II. Whether the Learned Courts below
were correct in applying the provision of
Sec.14 of the Indian Limitation Act in view of
the following dates:
(a) 15.11.75 - Suit filed.
(b) 12.12.80 -Court returns the
plaint on the ground lack of
pecuniary jurisdiction.
(c) 17.12.80 - On the Plaintiff's
prayer Court directed
appearance in the proper
Court on 19.1.81.
(d) 14.5.81- The present Plaint
filed.
12. I have already heard from the learned counsel of both the
sides.
13. When both the aforesaid formulated substantial
questions of law are interlinked having ample nexus with each
other as per the pleadings of the parties, findings and
observations made by the Trial Court and First Appellate
Court in their respective Judgments and Decrees, then, both
the substantial questions of law are taken up together for
their discussions hereunder:
14. It is the undisputed case of the parties that, Krushna
Pati, Keshaba, Madhab Pati and Jadab Pati being the 4 sons
of late Ghana Pati were 4 brothers. The preliminary decree
R.S.A. No.386 of 2004 Page 11 of 21
passed in T.S. No.32 of 1940 in respect of the suit properties
in favour of Krushna Pati, Keshaba, Madhab Pati and Jadab
Pati as well as final decree thereof and recovery of possession
through Execution Case No.36 of 1943 on the basis of the
final decree passed in T.S. No.32 of 1940 in their favour in
respect of the suit properties have not been set aside.
Accordingly, undisputedly, the grandfather of the
plaintiff i.e. Madhab Pati had 1/4th share in the suit
properties, because, all 4 brothers i.e. Krushna Pati, Keshaba
Pati, Madhab Pati and Jadab Pati had equal share in the suit
properties having 1/4th share each. The plaintiff Siba Narayan
Pati being the sole successor of Madhab Pati, after the death
of his father Jogeswar Pati, he (Siba Narayan Pati) had
inherited the 1/4th share of Madhab Pati in the suit
properties.
It is also the undisputed case of the parties that, in the
suit vide T.S. Nos.17/71, 59/74,19/75 & S.C.C. No.7/3 of
1975 filed by the defendant Nos.1 and 2 in respect of the suit
properties against some of the successors of Krushna Pati,
Keshaba Pati & Jadab Pati, neither the father of the plaintiff
R.S.A. No.386 of 2004 Page 12 of 21
i.e. Jogeswar Pati nor his mother Bhargabi Pati or the plaintiff
Siba Narayan Pati were the parties.
15. The decrees in the suits vide T.S. Nos.17/71,
59/74,19/75 & S.C.C. No.7/3 of 1975 were passed without
impleading anybody from the plaintiff’s branch. The above
suits vide T.S. Nos.17/71, 59/74,19/75 & S.C.C. No.7/3 of
1975 in respect of the suit properties were the suit for
declaration and permanent injunction.
It is the settled propositions of law that, the declaration
made under Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act does not
operate as Judgment in Rem.
A declaratory decree does not bind, the parties to the
suit or the persons claiming through parties to the suit and
the same does not bind anybody other than the parties to the
suit.
Likewise, the relief i.e. injunction is purely personal and
independent. The matter relating to injunction is
limited/concentrated only between the parties to the suit, not
to anybody other than the parties to the suit.
R.S.A. No.386 of 2004 Page 13 of 21
16. On this aspect, the propositions of law has already been
clarified by the Hon’ble Courts in the ratio of the following
decisions:
I. In a case between SNP Shipping Services Private Limited
& Others Vs. World Tanker Carrier Corporation &
Another reported in AIR 2000 Bombay 34 that, a
declaration given under section 34 is binding only between
the parties. It is a declaration in personam and not in rem.
II. In a case between Dunia Lal Datta Vs. Nagendra Nath
Datta & Another reported in AIR 1982 Calcutta 163 that,
as per Section 35 of the Specific Relief Act, a decree of
declaration will not be binding on Dunialal who was a
stranger to the suit.
III. In a case between Indubai Dagdu @ Dhondiram & Others
Vs. Laxman Balwant Chougule (deceased) & Others
reported in Civil Revision Application No.636 of 2023
(Bombay) at Para No.5 that, declaration of right in
personam and that therefore, the same would not bind non-
parties to suit.
IV. In a case between (O&M) Taqdir Jeet Singh @ Jagdir Jeet
Vs. State of Haryana & Others reported in CR No.512 of
2006 (P & H) at Para No.12 that, the decree of declaration
is a Judgment in personam and not a Judgment in rem.
V. In a case between Bengal Ambuja Housing Development
Limited vs. Pramila Sanfui and Ors reported in AIR 2015
(SC) 3729 that, either temporary or permanent injunction
can be grant only against the parties to a suit but not against
others. An injunction decree being a personal decree cannot
be binding upon anybody else other than the parties to the
suit.
17. So, in view of the principles of law enunciated in the
ratio of the above decisions, when neither the father of the
plaintiff i.e. Jogeswar Pati, nor the mother of the plaintiff i.e.
R.S.A. No.386 of 2004 Page 14 of 21
Bhargabi Pati or the plaintiff i.e. Sib Narayan Pati were the
parties in the suit vide T.S. Nos.17/71, 59/74,19/75 &
S.C.C. No.7/3 of 1975 in respect of the suit properties filed by
the defendant Nos.1 and 2, then, at this juncture, naturally,
as per law, such Judgments and Decrees passed in T.S.
Nos.17/71, 59/74,19/75 & S.C.C. No.7/3 of 1975 are not
binding upon the plaintiff.
As such, the plaintiff is not bound by the Judgments and
Decrees passed in T.S. Nos.17/71, 59/74,19/75 & S.C.C.
No.7/3 of 1975. Because as per law, the Judgments and
Decrees passed in the said suits have no binding effect upon
the plaintiff, as the plaintiff was not a party in the said suits.
18. Now, the question arises, whether the suit of the plaintiff
vide T.S. No.30 of 1981 was barred by limitation, as the same
was filed much after 3 years of the decrees passed in the suits
vide T.S. Nos.17/71, 59/74,19/75 & S.C.C. No.7/3 of 1975.
It has been specifically pleaded and proved on behalf of
the plaintiff that, the plaintiff was totally ignorant about the
filing of the suits vide T.S. Nos.17/71, 59/74,19/75 & S.C.C.
No.7/3 of 1975 by the defendant Nos.1 and 2 in respect of
R.S.A. No.386 of 2004 Page 15 of 21
the suit properties against others and he came to know about
the same for the first time on dated 31.10.1975, when in the
settlement camp, the defendant No.1 disclosed about the
same. Then on dated 15.11.1975, the plaintiff filed the suit
and thereafter, the plaint thereof was returned on 12.12.1980
on the ground of lack of pecuniary jurisdiction and then, on
dated 14.05.1981 the same was presented again and after
presentation, the same was registered as T.S. No.30 of 1981.
When, undisputedly the preliminary decree as well as
final decree in respect of the suit properties were passed in
T.S. No.32 of 1940 in favour of the father of the plaintiff along
with his 3 brothers and on the basis of such final decree, the
delivery of possession of the suit properties was given in
favour of the father of the plaintiff along his with 3 brothers in
Execution Case No.36 of 1943 executing the final decree
passed in T.S. No.32 of 1940 in respect of the suit properties
against the predecessor of the defendant Nos.1 and 2 and
when the preliminary decree and final decree in T.S. No.32 of
1940 as well as order regarding delivery of possession of the
suit properties in favour of the father of the plaintiff and his
R.S.A. No.386 of 2004 Page 16 of 21
three brothers passed in Execution Case No.36 of 1943 have
not been set aside, and when the father of the plaintiff i.e.
Jogeswar Pati, after him, the mother of the plaintiff i.e.
Bhargabi Pati as well as the plaintiff Sib Narayan Pati has
1/4th share in the suit properties, then, in the suits vide T.S.
Nos.17/71, 59/74,19/75 & S.C.C. No.7/3 of 1975 filed by the
defendant Nos.1 and 2 in respect of the suit properties for
declaration and permanent injunction, the members of
plaintiff’s branch should have been arrayed as party, but the
defendant Nos.1 and 2 have not done so.
On this aspect, the propositions of law has already been
clarified by the Hon’ble Courts in the ratio of the following
decision:
I. In a case between P.S. Radhakrishnan Vs. A. Indu reported in
2018 (4) Civ.C.C. (Ker) (DB) that, plaintiff cannot expect to
receive the discretionary relief of declaration without
impleading the person against whom the declaration is
sought or the person, who will be effected by the declaration
or person against whom, declaration is directed.
19. So, due to non-impleadment either to the father of the
plaintiff, mother of the plaintiff as well as plaintiff in the suit
vide T.S. Nos.17/71, 59/74,19/75 & S.C.C. No.7/3 of 1975 in
respect of the suit properties filed by the defendant Nos.1 and
R.S.A. No.386 of 2004 Page 17 of 21
2, it is held that, the defendant Nos.1 and 2 have managed to
obtain the decrees in the suits vide T.S. Nos.17/71,
59/74,19/75 & S.C.C. No.7/3 of 1975 behind the back of the
plaintiff and without his knowledge suppressing the material
facts and practising fraud. Because, in spite of knowing that,
as per the preliminary and final decree passed in T.S. No.32 of
1940, the plaintiff has 1/4th share in the suit properties, the
plaintiff was not impleaded by them (defendant Nos.1 & 2) as
parties in the suit vide T.S. Nos.17/71, 59/74,19/75 &
S.C.C. No.7/3 of 1975.
Here in this matter at hand, when the Judgments and
Decrees vide T.S. Nos.17/71, 59/74,19/75 & S.C.C. No.7/3 of
1975 in respect of the suit properties have been passed
behind the back and without the knowledge of the plaintiff as
well as without impleading plaintiff as a party in favour of the
defendant Nos.1 and 2 in respect of the suit properties and
when the plaintiff has prayed for setting aside the said
decrees, then, at this juncture, it cannot at all be held that,
the suit of the plaintiff vide T.S No.30 of 1981 was barred by
limitation. Because as per law, a fraudulent decree is itself
R.S.A. No.386 of 2004 Page 18 of 21
non-est in the eye of law and there is no limitation to
challenge the same. That apart, limitation starts from the date
of fraud becomes known to the plaintiff.
20. On this aspect, the propositions of law has already been
clarified by the Hon’ble Courts and Apex Court in the ratio of
the following decisions:
I. In a case between Madan Lal & Another Vs. Rajesh Kumar
(Dead) through LRs reported in 2006 (1) CCC (P & H) 230 &
2006 (I) Civ.L.T. 123 (P & H) that, suit for setting aside
Judgment and Decree allegedly obtained by fraud and
misrepresentation. Starting point of limitation would be the date
of knowledge of alleged fraud. Decree was passed in 1988, but
evidence to show that, plaintiff came to know about it in 1995
and suit was filed in 1995. Suit was rightly held to be in within
time. (Para Nos.14 & 16)
II. In a case between Sanotsh vs. Jagat Ram & Another reported
in 2010 (1) CLR (SC) 425 (Para No.12) that, a fraud puts an
end to everything. It is a settled position in law that, such decree
is nothing, but a nullity.
III. In a case between Subala Tarai & Diriba Swain vs. Collector,
Puri and Others reported in 2019 (1) CLR 748 that, action
initiated on discovery of fraud is not barred by limitation. Since,
fraud is a continuing wrong, period of limitation would begin to
run at every moment of time during which, such wrong
continues.
R.S.A. No.386 of 2004 Page 19 of 21
21. Here in this suit/appeal at hand, as per the discussions
and observations made above, when it is held that, the
plaintiff had filed the suit vide T.S. No.30 of 1981 praying for a
declaration that, the Judgments and Decrees in T.S.
Nos.17/71, 59/74,19/75 & S.C.C. No.7/3 of 1975 have been
passed behind his back without impleading him as party by
practising fraud knowing fully well that, he (plaintiff) had/has
1/4th interest in the suit properties, then, at this juncture, it
cannot be held that, the suit vide T.S. No.30 of 1981 filed by
the plaintiff is barred by limitation.
Because, fraud is a continuous wrong and period of
limitation begin to run at every moment. For which, there is
no limitation to challenge the same. Therefore, it cannot be
held that, the suit of the plaintiff is barred by limitation.
22. As per the discussions and observations made above,
when it is held on being fully agreed with the findings and
observations made by the Trial Court and First Appellate
Court that, the suit of the plaintiff vide T.S. No.30 of 1981 was
not barred by limitation, then, at this juncture, the question
of interfering with the Judgments and Decrees passed by the
R.S.A. No.386 of 2004 Page 20 of 21
Trial Court and First Appellate Court through this 2nd Appeal
filed by the LRs of the defendant No.1 does not arise.
23. Therefore, there is no merit in the 2nd Appeal of the
appellants (LRs of defendant No.1). The same must fail.
24. In result, the 2nd Appeal filed by the appellants (LRs of
defendant No.1) is dismissed on contest, but without cost.
25. The Judgments and Decrees passed by the Trial Court as
well as by the 1st Appellate Court in T.S. No.30 of 1981 & T.A.
No.57 of 1997 respectively are confirmed.
26. Pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of.
27. Interim order(s), if any, stand(s) vacated.
(ANANDA CHANDRA BEHERA)
JUDGE
High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
16 .04. 2025// Rati Ranjan Nayak
Sr. Stenographer
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: RATI RANJAN NAYAK
Reason: Authentication
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack, India.
Date: 17-Apr-2025 17:21:03
R.S.A. No.386 of 2004 Page 21 of 21