Dismissed
Ranjan Ku.Panigrahi v. Parsuram Mohapatra
Orissa HCWP(C)/2519/2012
Case brief
from the order text
What is this about?
OF 2012 08. 02.12.2016 This application has…
What the court decided
AI extract
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
W.P.(C) NO. 2519 OF 2012
08. 02.12.2016 This application has been filed calling in question the order
dated 06.01.2012 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Balasore in Misc. Case No.
197 of 2000 arising out of original suit bearing O.S. No. 916 of 1993-I in the matter of a pro
ceeding under order -9 rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure filed by the original plaintiff o
f the suit for restoration of the said suit dismissed for default, whose legal representatives
are now the opposite parties.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the opposite
parties.
I have gone through the order in question.
3. After closure of hearing of the proceeding under order -9 rule -9 of the Code, when th
e case stood posted for order, it was noticed that the copy of the deposition of one Parsuram
Mohapatra was missing from record. Since, finally it was not traced out nor could be substitut
ed; the original plaintiff filed a petition to allow him to examine that witness again. The co
urt allowed the same and his evidence was recorded. When the matter stood thus, the original p
laintiff filed another petition to examine the doctor as a witness. This having been allowed s
ubject to payment of cost of ‘1,000/-, now it is under challenge.
The objection is that the proceeding having once been closed when had been reopened fo
r the purpose of recording the evidence of that witness examined from the side of the original
plaintiff, at that stage, the court ought not to have allowed further scope to the plaintiff
to examine one more witness. It simply does not occur to me as to how there has been miscarria
ge of justice or flagrant violation of justice with such opportunity being provided to the pla
intiff when the adversary would be having all the right not only to cross-examine that witness
as also to lead any such other evidence if they so desire. The trial court by such order has
not foreclosed above opportunities available to the petitioner-defendants. Moreover, when such
opportunity as has been given to the plaintiff is not forbidden under the law, the objection
has been rightly overruled having no leg to stand in the eye of law.
In view of that, the application stands dismissed.
No order as to cost.
D. Dash, J.
Narayan.
// 2 //
Original Plaintiff (Petitioners)
Opposite Parties (Legal Representatives)
D. Dash
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court