Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Orissa · body

2015 DAILYLAW 849 (ORI)

SUDHIR KUMAR BHUYAN v. KADAMBINI BHUYAN

CMP/1628/2015 · 2026-07-24

Miss Savitri Ratho

body2015

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CMP No. 1628 of 2015 Sudhir Kumar Bhuyan …. Petitioner Mr. A. K. Panda, Advocate -versus- 1.Kadambini Bhuyan 2.Branch Manager, LIC Branch Office, Kendrapara 3.Divisional Manager LIC of India, Divisional Office, Cuttack 4. Saroj Kumar Bhuyan …. Opp. Parties None (for O.P. No.1) Ms. Sudhamayi Das, Advocate on behalf of Mr. P. K. Mohanty, Advocate (for O.P. No. 2 and 3) CORAM: HON’BLE MISS JUSTICE SAVITRI RATHO ORDER Order No. 05. 24.07.2026 (Through hybrid Mode) 1. This CMP has been filed challenging the order dated 04.12.2012 passed by the learned Civil Judge, (Senior Division), 2nd Court, Cuttack in Intest Misc. Case No. 04 of 2010, granting a succession Certificate in favour of the Opposite Party No.1; and the order dated 18.11.2015 passed by the learned District Judge, Cuttack in FAO No. 128 of 2012 dismissing the Appeal. 2. Notice had been issued in this CMP on 04.10.2016, but no interim order had been passed. 3. Mr. A. K. Panda, learned counsel for the Petitioner prays for an adjournment stating that the matter will be argued by Mr. A. C. Mohapatra, who is not available today as he has gone to Puri on occasion of Bahuda Yatra. 4. Ms. Sudhamayi Das, learned counsel is present on behalf of Mr. P. K. Mohanty, learned counsel for Opposite Party No. 2 and 3. 5. None appears for the Opposite Party No. 1. 6. Perusal of the impugned order dated 04.12.2012 reveals that the learned Civil Judge, (Senior Division), 2nd Court, Cuttack had held that the Opposite Party No.1 is entitled to the amount due on LIC policy bond no. 583477151 and the succession certificate had been issued in her favour allowing her to withdraw the whole of the amount. 7. In view of the order and since no interim order has been passed in this case, it can safely be presumed that in the meanwhile, the amount has been released in favour of the Opposite Party No.1. 8. Hence, this CMP is dismissed. 9. However, liberty is granted to the Petitioner for revival of the CMP within a period of four weeks, in case the said amount has not been released. (Savitri Ratho) Judge Subhalaxmi SAHOO