PARMANANDA MAHAPATRA versus COMMISSIONER OF HINDU RELIGIOUS ENDOWMENTS, ORISSA AND OTHERS

PARMANANDA MAHAPATRA versus COMMISSIONER OF HINDU RELIGIOUS ENDOWMENTS, ORISSA AND OTHERS

The right to institute a suit under section 64(2) is a statutory right not requiring impleadment of the public or recourse to Order 1 Rule 8 CPC; the Commissioner sufficiently represents the interests of the public, supporting the view that individual members of the public have no locus standi in such suits.

Parties
Appellant: Parmananda Mahapatra; Respondent No. 1: Commissioner of Hindu Religious Endowments, Orissa
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
10 September 1965
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Judgment and Decree, Remand to High Court
Outcome
appeals allowed; judgments and decrees of High Court set aside; matters remanded to High Court for determination according to law; parties to bear own costs to this stage
Legal Topics
Necessity of Impleading Public in Religious Endowment Suit, Order 1 Rule 8 CPC, Orissa Hindu Religious Endowment Act S.64(2), Standing of Commissioner
Religious Endowments Law Civil Procedure Necessity of Impleading Public in Religious Endowment Suit Order 1 Rule 8 CPC Orissa Hindu Religious Endowment Act S.64(2) Standing of Commissioner

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Parmananda Mahapatra

Appellant

Commissioner of Hindu Religious Endowments, Orissa

Respondent No. 1

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Judgment and Decree, Remand to High Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a suit filed under section 64(2) of the Orissa Hindu Religious Endowments Act requires impleading the public as parties in accordance with Order 1 Rule 8 of the Civil Procedure Code

Ratio Decidendi

The right to institute a suit under section 64(2) is a statutory right not requiring impleadment of the public or recourse to Order 1 Rule 8 CPC; the Commissioner sufficiently represents the interests of the public, supporting the view that individual members of the public have no locus standi in such suits.

Court Disposition

appeals allowed; judgments and decrees of High Court set aside; matters remanded to High Court for determination according to law; parties to bear own costs to this stage

Orders

  • Appeals allowed
  • Judgments and decrees of Orissa High Court in First Appeal Nos. 53 of 1956 and 78 of 1958 set aside