Quashed

Ratnakar Purseth v. Dukhi Munda@Jujohar

Orissa HC8 Nov 2016WP(C)/16421/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged an order directing a party to produce a specific land document. The High Court held that the trial court erred in issuing the direction without first ascertaining that the petitioner was in possession of the document. The order was quashed and remanded.

What did the court decide?

The order dated 19.08.2010 directing the petitioner to produce the Rayati Patta was quashed and the matter was remanded.

08. 08.11.2016 This writ application under Article-227 of the Constit ution has been filed seeking quashment of an order dated 19.08.2010 passed by the learned Civi l Judge (Sr. Division), Sambalpur in C.S. No. 02 of 2005 directing this petitioner (defendant no. 2) in the suit to produce one Rayati Patta (Chirastayi Patta) dated 25.11.1950.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that although this petition er in the written statement has referred to one Rayati Patta (Chirastayi Patta) dated 25.11.19 50, yet he is not in possession of the said document and has not so stated. According to him, when the patta relates to Ac. 0.56 decimals of land, the petitioner has only purchased Ac. 0.2 1 decimals from defendant no. 1 who had purchased it from one Jyotish Ch. Tripathy and thus th e petitioner has not been handed with that patta. He contends that these facts ought to have b een taken into consideration by the trial court before giving a direction to the petitioner to produce the document. He sums up contending that said order ought not to have been passed dir ecting that petitioner to produce that patta as he is not in possession of the same nor it has been otherwise so shown positively.

Learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 inviting the attention of this Court to the relevant para of the written stated where there is reference to the said do cument, submits that the court below has rightly directed the petitioner to produce the said d ocument.

With the above rival submission, when the order in question is perused , it is seen that the trial court has in no way dealt with the aspect as to whether the docume nt in question is either in custody of this petitioner or under certain circumstances the same is likely to remain with him. Moreover, this petitioner has not yet led any evidence as the r ecording of evidence from the side of the plaintiff is not yet over.

For consideration of the matter as regards issuance of direction to a party to produce a document, it is incumbent upon to court to form an opinion with reference t o the rival case etc that the said party is in possession of that document; as otherwise not o nly that the purpose of giving the direction would not be achieved but also that no such adver se affect would fall upon the party for even non-compliance of the said direction.

In view of the aforesaid, the order dated 19.08.2010 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Sambalpur in C.S. No. 02 of 2005 is hereby quashed. The matter is remitted ba ck to the said court for its reconsideration and disposal in accordance with law so as to proc eed further in the suit for its early disposal.

Ratnakar Purseth v. Dukhi Munda@Jujohar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ratnakar Purseth v. Dukhi Munda@Jujohar

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

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rukmani Nayak Vs Siddharth Sekhar

Prasanna Dandsena Vs Bhagawatia Saha

Priyadarsani Singha Vs State of Odisha

Dadhi Baman Jew Institute for the Deaf Vs State of Odisha

Subhasini Vs Collector,Bargarh

Kishore Mohanand Vs Sulochana Kaleth andO