{"id":41611,"date":"2010-11-19T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-11-18T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/upendranath-dey-vs-ananta-kumar-dey-and-others-on-19-november-2010"},"modified":"2017-09-11T14:23:27","modified_gmt":"2017-09-11T08:53:27","slug":"upendranath-dey-vs-ananta-kumar-dey-and-others-on-19-november-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/upendranath-dey-vs-ananta-kumar-dey-and-others-on-19-november-2010","title":{"rendered":"Upendranath Dey vs Ananta Kumar Dey And Others … on 19 November, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Orissa High Court<\/div>\n
Upendranath Dey vs Ananta Kumar Dey And Others … on 19 November, 2010<\/div>\n
                             HIGH COURT OF ORISSA: CUTTACK.\n\n                                    W.P.(C) NO.2460 OF 2008\n\n         In the matter of an application under Articles 226 and 227 of the\n         Constitution of India.\n                                    ------------\n<\/pre>\n
         Upendranath Dey                              .......                Petitioner.\n\n\n                                    -   Versus-\n\n\n         Ananta Kumar Dey and others                   .......               Opposite Parties\n\n\n                For petitioner          :       M\/s. Ramakanta Mohanty, D.K.\n                                                   Mohanty, A.P. Bose, S.K.Mohanty,\n                                                     P. Jena, D. Patnaik, S.N. Biswal\n                                                      and S. Mohanty\n\n\n                For Opp. Parties :                M\/s. P.K. Jena, N. Panda\n                                                       and D.P. Mohapatra (O.P.1)\n\n\n         PRESENT:\n\n                         THE HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE B.K. PATEL\n<\/pre>\n
         —————————————————————————————-
\n           Date of argument – 3.11.2010 :: Date of judgment – 19.11.2010\n<\/p>\n
         —————————————————————————————-<\/p>\n
B.K.PATEL, J.            Petitioner has assailed in this writ petition the legality of<\/p>\n
         order dated 28.1.2008 passed by learned Civil Judge, (Junior Division),<\/p>\n
         Jaleswar in Misc. Case No.3 of 2006 by which opposite party no.1’s<\/p>\n
         application under Order 9 Rule 13 of the C.P.C. was allowed and ex<\/p>\n
         parte decree passed in T.S. No.130 of 1991 by learned Munsif, Balasore<\/p>\n
         was set aside subject to payment of cost of Rs.4,5000\/-.
\n                                    2<\/span><\/p>\n
2.          Petitioner is the plaintiff and opposite party no.1 is the<\/p>\n
defendant no.1 in T.S. No.130 of 1991. Petitioner has filed the suit<\/p>\n
for correction of M.S. ROR. Petitioner’s case is that in response to<\/p>\n
notice opposite party no.1 entered appearance through Sri B. Jena,<\/p>\n
Advocate and took time thrice to file written statement. However, as no<\/p>\n
written statement was filed by opposite party no.1, ex parte decree was<\/p>\n
passed on 2.11.1992 in favour of the petitioner.        Pursuant to the<\/p>\n
decree petitioner filed mutation cases bearing Misc. Case Nos.47 and<\/p>\n
48 of 1995 in which also opposite party no.1 did not appear in spite of<\/p>\n
service of notice and M.S. ROR was corrected.        Long after thirteen<\/p>\n
years, opposite party no.1 filed application under Order 9 Rule 13 of<\/p>\n
the C.P.C. accompanied by application under Section 5 of the<\/p>\n
Limitation Act. Petitioner filed objections against both the applications.<\/p>\n
In support of opposite party no.1’s assertions P.W.1 was examined and<\/p>\n
documents marked Exts.1 to 3 were admitted into evidence.            It is<\/p>\n
averred in the writ petition that without affording any opportunity to<\/p>\n
the petitioner to cross-examine P.W.1, the impugned order was passed<\/p>\n
erroneously holding that summons was not served on the opposite<\/p>\n
party no.1 in the suit.\n<\/p>\n
3.          It was contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner<\/p>\n
that order sheet in T.S. No.130 of 1991 reveals that opposite party no.1<\/p>\n
had entered appearance through Sri B. Jena, Advocate on 4.5.1992<\/p>\n
and filed petitions for time to file written statement and for setting
\n                                     3<\/span><\/p>\n
aside the order setting him ex parte. On 24.6.1992 also opposite party<\/p>\n
no.1 had filed petition for time to file written statement          which<\/p>\n
was allowed subject to payment of cost of Rs.10\/-. However, opposite<\/p>\n
party no.1 neither paid cost nor took any step on 6.7.1992 and<\/p>\n
28.7.1992 for which application dated 4.5.1992 to set aside the order<\/p>\n
setting opposite party no.1 ex parte was rejected. Notice was issued to<\/p>\n
opposite party no.1 in mutation cases also, but he did not participate<\/p>\n
in the proceeding before the Tahasildar. After long lapse of thirteen<\/p>\n
years, opposite party no.1 filed application under Order 9 Rule 13 of<\/p>\n
the C.P.C. on the ground that the petitioner had not supplied correct<\/p>\n
address of opposite party no.1 and committed fraud on the court in<\/p>\n
order to obtain ex parte decree and that opposite party no.1 had no<\/p>\n
knowledge regarding the ex parte decree till he was told regarding the<\/p>\n
same by his lawyer appearing in C.S. No.65 of 2003-1. Learned court<\/p>\n
below passed the impugned order without considering petitioner’s<\/p>\n
objections and without giving him opportunity to cross-examine<\/p>\n
opposite party no.1’s son who was examined as P.W.1. It was<\/p>\n
strenuously contended that learned court below had no basis to come<\/p>\n
to the finding that the opposite party no.1 had no knowledge regarding<\/p>\n
the ex parte decree till filing of application under Order 9 Rule 13 of the<\/p>\n
C.P.C. in the year 2006.\n<\/p>\n
      4.           It was contended on behalf of learned counsel for the<\/p>\n
opposite party no.1 that petitioner practised fraud on the court to
\n                                   4<\/span><\/p>\n
obtain ex parte decree dated 2.11.1992. No notice was ever served on<\/p>\n
opposite party no.1 in the suit. He did not execute any Vakalatnama<\/p>\n
in favour of Sri B. Jena, Advocate.    Opposite party no.1 could know<\/p>\n
about the ex parte decree from his lawyer appearing in C.S. No.65 of<\/p>\n
2003-1 in which copy of the ex parte decree was filed by the petitioner<\/p>\n
on 30.11.2005. Evidence was adduced on behalf of opposite party no.1<\/p>\n
to substantiate such assertions. P.W.1 was cross-examined on behalf of<\/p>\n
the petitioner. No evidence was adduced on behalf of the petitioner to<\/p>\n
substantiate the claim that notice was issued to opposite party no.1 or<\/p>\n
that opposite party no.1 entered appearance through any counsel.<\/p>\n
Learned court below has passed the impugned order upon perusal of<\/p>\n
the case record which indicates that service of summons on opposite<\/p>\n
party no.1 was held by order dated 22.2.1992 to be sufficient after<\/p>\n
‘refusal postal service’. S.R. and P.A. of opposite party no.1 indicating<\/p>\n
due service of notice was not available in the case record.     Learned<\/p>\n
court below has awarded exemplary cost of Rs.4,500\/- to take care of<\/p>\n
inconvenience caused to the petitioner. In such circumstances, there is<\/p>\n
no reason to interfere with the finding of fact regarding non-service of<\/p>\n
summons in exercise of writ jurisdiction.\n<\/p>\n
5.          Non-service of summons against a defendant is one of the<\/p>\n
two statutory grounds under Order 9 Rule 13 C.P.C. for setting aside a<\/p>\n
decree passed against him ex parte. Provision, inter alia, mandates that<\/p>\n
in any case in which a decree is passed ex parte against a defendant, he
\n                                    5<\/span><\/p>\n
may apply to the Court by which the decree was passed for an order to<\/p>\n
set it aside; and if he satisfies the court that the summons was not duly<\/p>\n
served, court shall make an order setting aside the decree as against<\/p>\n
him upon such terms as to costs.\n<\/p>\n
\nIt has been held in Rabindra Pras Kamilla -v- Abhaya Prasad<\/p>\n
Kamilla: (1987) CLT (supp.) 428 that Order 9 Rule 13 C.P.C. is a<\/p>\n
beneficial legislation for the benefit of the defendant against whom<\/p>\n
ex parte decree has been passed. Subject to the specific preconditions,<\/p>\n
the same is to be interpreted liberally in favour of the defendant<\/p>\n
applying for setting aside the ex parte decree.     In Prafulla Chadra<\/p>\n
Deo -v- Satyanarayan Chandra Deo and another : 1992(I) OLR 277<\/p>\n
and Bishnu Charan Malla -v- Sanskarsan Mohapatra alias Behera<\/p>\n
and others: 2003(I) OLR 61 it has been observed that even if a<\/p>\n
defendant might have knowledge of the suit, yet he is within his right<\/p>\n
to expect an effective service of summons on him calling upon him to<\/p>\n
appear in court and unless such service is made, he may avoid the<\/p>\n
Court. In Lundu Roudia -v- Dusman Roudia: 1996(II)OLR 355 it has<\/p>\n
been held that while dealing with application under Order 9 Rule 13<\/p>\n
C.P.C. court should see that the rights of the parties are determined on<\/p>\n
contest. Approach should not be over technical and contrary to liberal<\/p>\n
and should be justice oriented.\n<\/p>\n
6.          Case of the present opposite party no.1 is that no<\/p>\n
summons was served on him in the suit. He came to know regarding
\n                                   6<\/span><\/p>\n
the ex parte decree when copy of the same was filed in court by the<\/p>\n
petitioner on 30.11.2005 in I.A. No.3 of 2004 arising of Civil Suit<\/p>\n
No.65 of 2003-I. Application under Order 9 Rule 13 C.P.C. was filed<\/p>\n
on 16.1.2006 along the application under section 5 of the Limitation<\/p>\n
Act and a medical certificate indicating opposite party no.1’s illness<\/p>\n
from 1.11.2005 to 13.1.2006.          Petitioner filed objections to the<\/p>\n
petitions filed by the opposite party no.1.    Opposite party no.1 had<\/p>\n
executed power of attorney in favour of his son who was examined as<\/p>\n
P.W.1.   In his affidavit evidence P.W.1 reiterated the assertions made<\/p>\n
in the applications under Order 9 Rule 13 C.P.C. and section 5 of the<\/p>\n
Limitation Act.   His evidence regarding illness found corroboration<\/p>\n
from the medical certificate Ext.3.     Certified copy of the order in<\/p>\n
I.A.No.3 of 2004 was also filed at Ext.2.      Though order sheets in<\/p>\n
T.S.No.130 of 1991 indicates that the opposite party no.1 appeared<\/p>\n
through Mr. B.Jena, Advocate and filed petitions for time on 4.5.1992<\/p>\n
and 26.6.1992, no suggestion whatsoever was given to P.W.1 in course<\/p>\n
of his cross-examination regarding opposite party no.1’s appearance in<\/p>\n
court.   P.W.1 appears to have reiterated in course of       his cross-<\/p>\n
examination that no notice was served on his father. Moreover, no oral<\/p>\n
or documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of the petitioner to<\/p>\n
indicate service of summons on opposite party no.1.           Even the<\/p>\n
Vakalatnama alleged to have been executed by P.W.1 in favour of Sri<\/p>\n
B.Jena, Advocate was not confronted to P.W.1. On examination of the
\n                                     7<\/span><\/p>\n
case record learned court below does not appear to have found the S.R.<\/p>\n
and P.A. of opposite party no.1.        Finding of the learned court below<\/p>\n
regarding non-service of summons having been based on the basis of<\/p>\n
such materials on record, in view of the statutory provisions under<\/p>\n
Order 9 Rule 13 C.P.C. and legal principles indicated above, there<\/p>\n
appears no ground to interfere with the impugned order.<\/p>\n
             Therefore, the writ petition is dismissed.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                                                 …………………..\n<\/p>\n
                                                 B.K. Patel, J.\n<\/p>\n
Orissa High Court, Cuttack,
\nThe 18th Nov., 2010\/Jhankar\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Orissa High Court Upendranath Dey vs Ananta Kumar Dey And Others … on 19 November, 2010 HIGH COURT OF ORISSA: CUTTACK. W.P.(C) NO.2460 OF 2008 In the matter of an application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. ———— Upendranath Dey ……. Petitioner. – Versus- Ananta Kumar Dey and others ……. Opposite […]<\/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-41611","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-orissa-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nUpendranath Dey vs Ananta Kumar Dey And Others ... on 19 November, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & 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\/upendranath-dey-vs-ananta-kumar-dey-and-others-on-19-november-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Upendranath Dey vs Ananta Kumar Dey And Others ... on 19 November, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/upendranath-dey-vs-ananta-kumar-dey-and-others-on-19-november-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2010-11-18T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-09-11T08:53:27+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\\\/upendranath-dey-vs-ananta-kumar-dey-and-others-on-19-november-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/upendranath-dey-vs-ananta-kumar-dey-and-others-on-19-november-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Upendranath Dey vs Ananta Kumar Dey And Others … on 19 November, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-11-18T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-09-11T08:53:27+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/upendranath-dey-vs-ananta-kumar-dey-and-others-on-19-november-2010\"},\"wordCount\":1480,\"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\\\/upendranath-dey-vs-ananta-kumar-dey-and-others-on-19-november-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/upendranath-dey-vs-ananta-kumar-dey-and-others-on-19-november-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/upendranath-dey-vs-ananta-kumar-dey-and-others-on-19-november-2010\",\"name\":\"Upendranath Dey vs Ananta Kumar Dey And Others ... on 19 November, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-11-18T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-09-11T08:53:27+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/upendranath-dey-vs-ananta-kumar-dey-and-others-on-19-november-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/upendranath-dey-vs-ananta-kumar-dey-and-others-on-19-november-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/upendranath-dey-vs-ananta-kumar-dey-and-others-on-19-november-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Upendranath Dey vs Ananta Kumar Dey And Others … on 19 November, 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":"Upendranath Dey vs Ananta Kumar Dey And Others ... on 19 November, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & 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\/upendranath-dey-vs-ananta-kumar-dey-and-others-on-19-november-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Upendranath Dey vs Ananta Kumar Dey And Others ... on 19 November, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/upendranath-dey-vs-ananta-kumar-dey-and-others-on-19-november-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-11-18T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-09-11T08:53:27+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\/upendranath-dey-vs-ananta-kumar-dey-and-others-on-19-november-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/upendranath-dey-vs-ananta-kumar-dey-and-others-on-19-november-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Upendranath Dey vs Ananta Kumar Dey And Others … on 19 November, 2010","datePublished":"2010-11-18T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-09-11T08:53:27+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/upendranath-dey-vs-ananta-kumar-dey-and-others-on-19-november-2010"},"wordCount":1480,"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\/upendranath-dey-vs-ananta-kumar-dey-and-others-on-19-november-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/upendranath-dey-vs-ananta-kumar-dey-and-others-on-19-november-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/upendranath-dey-vs-ananta-kumar-dey-and-others-on-19-november-2010","name":"Upendranath Dey vs Ananta Kumar Dey And Others ... on 19 November, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-11-18T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-09-11T08:53:27+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/upendranath-dey-vs-ananta-kumar-dey-and-others-on-19-november-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/upendranath-dey-vs-ananta-kumar-dey-and-others-on-19-november-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/upendranath-dey-vs-ananta-kumar-dey-and-others-on-19-november-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Upendranath Dey vs Ananta Kumar Dey And Others … on 19 November, 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\/41611","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=41611"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/41611\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=41611"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=41611"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=41611"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}