{"id":255028,"date":"2010-09-29T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-09-28T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bidhu-bhusan-nayak-ors-vs-vrs-on-29-september-2010"},"modified":"2016-03-02T15:34:42","modified_gmt":"2016-03-02T10:04:42","slug":"bidhu-bhusan-nayak-ors-vs-vrs-on-29-september-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bidhu-bhusan-nayak-ors-vs-vrs-on-29-september-2010","title":{"rendered":"Bidhu Bhusan Nayak &amp; Ors vs Vrs on 29 September, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Orissa High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Bidhu Bhusan Nayak &amp; Ors vs Vrs on 29 September, 2010<\/div>\n<pre id=\"pre_1\">                                   SANJU PANDA, J.\n<\/pre>\n<p id=\"p_1\">                  W.P.(C) NO.6482 OF 2006 (Decided on .29.09.2010)<\/p>\n<p>BIDHU BHUSAN NAYAK &amp; ORS.                              &#8230;&#8230;&#8230; Petitioners.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_1\">                                           .Vrs.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_2\">SAROJINI NAYAK &amp; ORS.                                  &#8230;&#8230;&#8230; Opp.Parties.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_3\">CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE, 1908 (ACT NO. 5 OF1908) &#8211; SEC.47.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_4\">      For Petitioners &#8211;    M\/s.Dayananda Mohapatra, D.K.Sahoo,<br \/>\n                           M.Mohapatra, S.K.Swain &amp; G.R.Mohapatra.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_5\">      For Opp.Party No.1 &#8211; M\/s. Surya Prasad Mishra, S.Mishra, S.Das,<br \/>\n                           S.Nanda, Miss.S.Mishra, S.S.Satpathy,<br \/>\n                           B.Mohanty, S.K.Mohanty, A.K.Das &amp;<br \/>\n                           S.S.Kashyap<\/p>\n<p>S. PANDA, J. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 24.2.2006 passed<br \/>\nby the learned Addl. District Judge, Bhadrak in Civil Revision Petition No.13 of 2005<br \/>\ndismissing the revision which was filed challenging the order dated 8.11.2005 passed by<br \/>\nthe learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bhadrak in Misc. Case No.93 of 1996 rejecting<br \/>\nan application filed under Section 47 of the Civil Procedure Code.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_6\">2.      The brief facts of the case are as follows:\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_7\">        The judgment debtor nos.1, 3 and 4 who are the sons of defendant no.1 in Title<br \/>\nSuit No.136 of 1976 filed an application under Section 47 read with Section 151 and<br \/>\nOrder 32 Rules-3, 3(A), 4, 7(2) read with Sections 10 and 15 of the Civil Procedure Code<br \/>\nraising a question that defendant nos.16 to 19 who are judgment-debtor nos.21 to 24 are<br \/>\nfamily deities of the parties. From the order dated 26.7.1985 of the final decree<br \/>\nproceeding, it appears that the deities refused to receive the summons. In the suit, &#8216;Ga&#8217;<br \/>\nSchedule properties were allotted to the parties but there was no instruction in the<br \/>\ndecree as to how worship and management of those deities should be done. The trial<br \/>\ncourt though described the case of the deities who had been installed by the ancestor of<br \/>\nthe parties, the elder branch of the family generationwise enjoyed the said schedule<br \/>\nproperties and managed the day-to-day affairs of the deities. The plaintiff and defendant<br \/>\nno.3 were the employees of South Railways Department. Without making any<br \/>\narrangement for the deities, they included the suit properties for their mutual benefits.<br \/>\nDefendant no.15 was a minor. The trial court engaged an advocate for her guardian.<br \/>\nHowever, he did not represent the said minor at the time of hearing. As she was set ex<br \/>\nparte, her interest had been relinquished in favour of defendant no.3. Defendant<br \/>\nNo.1(Ka) was declared dead vide order dated 14.12.1981. Accordingly, the said branch<br \/>\ncould not contest the case properly. Subsequently, some person filed an objection under<br \/>\nSection 47 of the Civil Procedure Code as judgment-debtor 1(ka) to declare the<br \/>\njudgment and decree passed in the suit as a nullity, void and the same was not capable<br \/>\nof execution. The decree-holders filed their objection to the said application stating that<br \/>\nthe executing court could not go behind the decree and the allegations made by the<br \/>\njudgment-debtors were false and baseless. The executing court, after hearing the parties<br \/>\nand analyzing the facts and circumstances of the case, held that the present petitioners<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\" id=\"span_1\">                                               2<\/span><\/p>\n<p>are sons of Niranjan Nayak-defendant no.1 and the plaintiff is the brother of defendant<br \/>\nno.1. Defendant nos.2,4 and 5 are other brothers and sisters of the plaintiff. The parties<br \/>\nadmitted that defendant nos.16 to 19 (JDr 21 to 24) are represented by defendant no.1<br \/>\nto 15 who are co-sharers. Therefore, there was no necessity for appointment of guardian<br \/>\nwhen they had been properly represented. So far as defendant no.15 and other so-<br \/>\ncalled persons are concerned, none of the parties challenged the preliminary decree.<br \/>\nHence, the final decree was drawn according to the preliminary decree and after long<br \/>\nlapse of several years the present petitioners challenged the preliminary decree only to<br \/>\nlinger the process by way of dilatory tactics. Therefore, the trial court rejected the said<br \/>\nmisc. case.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_8\">3.      Challenging the said order, the petitioners filed civil revision. The revisional court<br \/>\non scrutiny noticed that the deities are represented by their Marfatdars. The Marfatdari<br \/>\nrights with respect to the deities&#8217; properties have been apportioned between the parties<br \/>\nand the Seva Puja of the deities has been managed by the joint efforts apportioning the<br \/>\ncost. The preliminary decree was passed in the year 1984. The final decree passed in<br \/>\nthe year 1987 had not been challenged. The allotments made by the Commissioner had<br \/>\nalso not been challenged by the parties. In the meantime the parties had already dealt<br \/>\nwith the properties separately by selling the same. Therefore, it can be held that the<br \/>\napplication under Section 47 of the Civil Procedure Code was filed only to delay the<br \/>\nmatter and the decree could not be held as a nullity. Therefore, there is nothing to be<br \/>\ninterfered with the impugned order. Accordingly, the revisional court dismissed the<br \/>\nrevision.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_9\">4.      Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the suit was filed for partition<br \/>\nof the joint family properties of the deities, defendant nos.16 to 19, and they were set ex<br \/>\nparte. As they were set ex parte their interest was not protected properly. They being<br \/>\nperpetual minors, the court should have protected their interest by engaging a guardian.<br \/>\nAs the minors were not properly represented, the judgment and decree passed by the<br \/>\ntrial court was a nullity. Both the executing court as well as the revisional court failed to<br \/>\nappreciate the same and rejected the application of the petitioners. Therefore, the<br \/>\nimpugned order is liable to be set aside. He further submitted that though the present<br \/>\npetitioners are very much alive, they were shown as dead leaving behind no legal heirs<br \/>\nvide order dated 25.8.1980. The other legal heirs of defendant no.1 were substituted and<br \/>\nthe suit was disposed of in the absence of the petitioners. The trial court allotted one-half<br \/>\nshare in favour of defendants 3,6 and 15 and allotted one-half share to the plaintiff, D-1\/<br \/>\nKa to D-1\/Ta, D-2,D-4 and D-5. Plaintiff got 21\/150 interest in the suit properties which is<br \/>\na part of the aforesaid half interest. In support of his contention, he cited a decision<br \/>\nreported in 53 (1982) CLT 509 (<a href=\"\/doc\/863734\/\" id=\"a_1\">Bhagabat Sahu v. Parbati Samal and others<\/a>) wherein<br \/>\nthis Court has held that when a decree is challenged as nullity because judgment-<br \/>\ndebtors were not duly represented, the matter is to be agitated in an independent action<br \/>\nand not to be within the ambit of Section 47 of the Civil Procedure Code. Accordingly,<br \/>\nthe executing court as well as the revisional court should have held that the petitioners<br \/>\nmay raise that question independently in respect of rejecting their application in the<br \/>\nexecution case.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_10\">5.      Learned counsel for the opposite party no.1 submitted that the deities were duly<br \/>\nrepresented and the suit being a partition suit, the preliminary decree having been<br \/>\nconfirmed in the final decree and the same not having been challenged in any manner,<br \/>\nthe petitioners should not raise this question at a belated stage when the parties have<br \/>\nalready dealt with the properties independently. He further submitted that the only<br \/>\nintention of the petitioners is to drag the matter. As there is no error apparent on the face<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\" id=\"span_1\">                                               3<\/span><\/p>\n<p>of the record, this Court should not interfere with the same in exercise of the jurisdiction<br \/>\nunder <a href=\"\/doc\/1331149\/\" id=\"a_1\">Article 227<\/a> of the Constitution of India.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_11\">6.       The fact that the deities are family deities and the suit was filed for partition. The<br \/>\npreliminary decree was passed in the year 1984 and the same was confirmed in the final<br \/>\ndecree in the year 1987. Allotment of share by the Commissioner had not been<br \/>\nobjected, the deities are represented by Marfatdars and the Marfatdary right with<br \/>\nrespect to the deities&#8217; properties had been apportioned between the parties. Therefore,<br \/>\nthe properties under &#8216;Ga&#8217; Schedule are enjoyed by the family and all these properties are<br \/>\npartiable. According to their claim, the trial court considered the case of the parties and<br \/>\npassed a preliminary decree which was not challenged at all. The question now raised<br \/>\nby the petitioners is that the deities being perpetual minors were not properly<br \/>\nrepresented and defendant no.15 being a minor was also not properly represented and<br \/>\nhence the decree is to be declared as a nullity. The said question was raised by filing an<br \/>\napplication under Section 47 of the Civil Procedure Code. Under Section 47 of the Civil<br \/>\nProcedure Code the Court has to decide all questions arising between the parties to the<br \/>\nsuit in which the decree was passed or their representatives and relating to the<br \/>\nexecution, discharge or satisfaction of the decree shall be determined by the Court<br \/>\nexecuting the decree.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_12\">7.       From the above it is crystal clear that whether the decree was obtained validly or<br \/>\nnot is within the scope of Section 47 of the Civil Procedure Code which is only to<br \/>\nconsider the discharge or satisfaction of the decree by the executing court. This Court in<br \/>\nthe case of Bhagabat Sahu&#8217;s case (supra) has held that if the judgment-debtors contend<br \/>\nthat they were not properly represented and were not thus parties to the decree, they<br \/>\ncannot come under Section 47 of the Civil Procedure Code as if they were parties to the<br \/>\nsuit. This is a matter, therefore, which has to be decided by a separate suit.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_13\">8.       Therefore, considering the above principle and law and the fact that the present<br \/>\npetitioners are raising a question that the deities who are minors and other minors were<br \/>\nnot properly represented, this Court is of the view that they cannot raise those questions<br \/>\nby filing a petition under Section 47 of the Civil Procedure Code. It is open to the parties<br \/>\nto raise that question independently.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_14\">9.       As there is no error apparent on the face of the impugned order, this Court is not<br \/>\ninclined to interfere with the same.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_15\">         With the aforesaid observation, this writ petition is disposed of.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_16\">                                                  Writ petition disposed of.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Orissa High Court Bidhu Bhusan Nayak &amp; Ors vs Vrs on 29 September, 2010 SANJU PANDA, J. W.P.(C) NO.6482 OF 2006 (Decided on .29.09.2010) BIDHU BHUSAN NAYAK &amp; ORS. &#8230;&#8230;&#8230; Petitioners. .Vrs. SAROJINI NAYAK &amp; ORS. &#8230;&#8230;&#8230; Opp.Parties. CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE, 1908 (ACT NO. 5 OF1908) &#8211; SEC.47. For Petitioners &#8211; M\/s.Dayananda Mohapatra, D.K.Sahoo, M.Mohapatra, [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,25],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-255028","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-orissa-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Bidhu Bhusan Nayak &amp; Ors vs Vrs on 29 September, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bidhu-bhusan-nayak-ors-vs-vrs-on-29-september-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Bidhu Bhusan Nayak &amp; Ors vs Vrs on 29 September, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bidhu-bhusan-nayak-ors-vs-vrs-on-29-september-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2010-09-28T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-03-02T10:04:42+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"8 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bidhu-bhusan-nayak-ors-vs-vrs-on-29-september-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bidhu-bhusan-nayak-ors-vs-vrs-on-29-september-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Bidhu Bhusan Nayak &amp; Ors vs Vrs on 29 September, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-09-28T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-03-02T10:04:42+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bidhu-bhusan-nayak-ors-vs-vrs-on-29-september-2010\"},\"wordCount\":1598,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Orissa High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bidhu-bhusan-nayak-ors-vs-vrs-on-29-september-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bidhu-bhusan-nayak-ors-vs-vrs-on-29-september-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bidhu-bhusan-nayak-ors-vs-vrs-on-29-september-2010\",\"name\":\"Bidhu Bhusan Nayak &amp; Ors vs Vrs on 29 September, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-09-28T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-03-02T10:04:42+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bidhu-bhusan-nayak-ors-vs-vrs-on-29-september-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bidhu-bhusan-nayak-ors-vs-vrs-on-29-september-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bidhu-bhusan-nayak-ors-vs-vrs-on-29-september-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Bidhu Bhusan Nayak &amp; Ors vs Vrs on 29 September, 2010\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Bidhu Bhusan Nayak &amp; Ors vs Vrs on 29 September, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bidhu-bhusan-nayak-ors-vs-vrs-on-29-september-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Bidhu Bhusan Nayak &amp; Ors vs Vrs on 29 September, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bidhu-bhusan-nayak-ors-vs-vrs-on-29-september-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-09-28T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-03-02T10:04:42+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"8 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bidhu-bhusan-nayak-ors-vs-vrs-on-29-september-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bidhu-bhusan-nayak-ors-vs-vrs-on-29-september-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Bidhu Bhusan Nayak &amp; Ors vs Vrs on 29 September, 2010","datePublished":"2010-09-28T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-03-02T10:04:42+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bidhu-bhusan-nayak-ors-vs-vrs-on-29-september-2010"},"wordCount":1598,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Orissa High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bidhu-bhusan-nayak-ors-vs-vrs-on-29-september-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bidhu-bhusan-nayak-ors-vs-vrs-on-29-september-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bidhu-bhusan-nayak-ors-vs-vrs-on-29-september-2010","name":"Bidhu Bhusan Nayak &amp; Ors vs Vrs on 29 September, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-09-28T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-03-02T10:04:42+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bidhu-bhusan-nayak-ors-vs-vrs-on-29-september-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bidhu-bhusan-nayak-ors-vs-vrs-on-29-september-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bidhu-bhusan-nayak-ors-vs-vrs-on-29-september-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Bidhu Bhusan Nayak &amp; Ors vs Vrs on 29 September, 2010"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/255028","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=255028"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/255028\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=255028"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=255028"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=255028"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}