Partly allowed

Debabrata Prusty v. Sitaram Mishra

Orissa HC21 Dec 2016CRLREV/953/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order grants the petitioner leave to amend the cause title. In a criminal revision regarding an exclusion of defence exhibits, the court remits the issue of marking documents to the Trial Court by permitting a fresh application before the specified date.

What did the court decide?

Permission granted to amend cause title; updated for marking documents as exhibits to be filed by 23.12.2016 before J.M.F.C., Angul.

Debabrata Prusty Vs Sitaram Mishra — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Orissa HC (2016)

¶1

21.12.2016CRLREV No.953 of 2016

¶2

 Heard Mrs. Sujata Jena, learned counsel for the petitioner.
 Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that though the petitioner had ea
rlier approached this Court in connection with the case in a different context but inadvertent
ly the same has not been mentioned in the cause title and she may be permitted to mention the
same in the cause title.

¶3

Permission is granted.

¶4

The petitioner has challenged the impugned order dated 12.12.2016 passed by th e learned J.M.F.C., Angul in C.T. Case No.1994 of 2011. Learned counsel for the petitioner con tended that the petitioner filed a petition along with the certified copies of the entire orde r sheet and complaint petition in ICC Case No.96 of 2012, ICC Case No.131 of 2013 and certifie d copies of I.C.C. Register of relevant entry of I.C.C. Case No.32 of 2013, 160 of 2013, 165 o f 2013, 183 of 2013, 184 of 2013, 40 of 2014, 41 of 2014 before the learned J.M.F.C., Angul an d prayed to mark those documents as exhibits which has been rejected vide impugned order dated 12.12.2016.

¶5

It is specifically stated that in the petition dated 12.12.2016 that though th e certified copies of the documents were applied for on 15.09.2016 but those were made availab le to the learned counsel for the petitioner only on 09.12.2016. It appears that the documents which were sought to be exhibited by the petitioner are public documents and according to the learned counsel for the

¶6

petitioner those have got relevancy with the defence plea and therefore, the learned J.M.F.C.,
 Angul should not have rejected the petition in marking those documents as exhibits.
 Needless to say what would be effect and relevancy of those documents shall be
 dealt by the learned Trial Court in his judgment.
 On perusal of the order sheet, it appears that the case was posted to 17.12.20
16 for argument. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that on that date, adjournment w
as sought for and it is fixed to today for argument and a petition has been filed before the l
earned Trial Court today to defer the matter on the ground of pendency of the revision petitio
n before this Court.

¶7

 In order to avoid the delay in disposal of the proceeding in the Trial Court,
I direct that if another application is filed to mark the aforesaid documents as exhibits on b
ehalf of the defence by day after tomorrow (i.e. 23.12.2016) assigning the reasons for the rel
evancy of those documents by giving copy thereof to the learned counsel for the opposite party
- complainant Sitaram Mishra, the learned Magistrate shall pass appropriate order in that resp
ect and thereafter proceed to hear the argument from both the sides and deliver the judgment.
 With the aforesaid observation, the criminal revision petition is disposed of.

¶8

Debabrata Prusty v. Sitaram Mishra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Debabrata Prusty v. Sitaram Mishra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Case details

Similar cases

Pradip Kumar Jha Vs D.F.O.,Rairangpur

Nirakar Nayak Vs State of Odisha

Panchanan Nayak Vs Regional Manager,Rbi

Satyanarayan Mohapatra Vs State of Orissa

Eswa Anand Kumar Vs Alamasethi Pratima

Mohammed Fakruddin Shadat Vs Sabina Begum