Dismissed

Om Prakash Mishra v. Satyanarayan Tarai

Orissa HC14 Dec 2018CMP/202/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a second writ petition regarding eviction suit proceedings where evidence was closed but the trial judge issued notices for additional evidence, the High Court dismissed the plea. The Court directed the trial judge to proceed with the arguments scheduled for argument on 24.8.2017 and pronounce judgment.

What did the court decide?

The petition challenging the orders of the lower court was dismissed. The trial judge was directed to proceed with arguments scheduled for January 2019 and pronounce judgment.

Om Prakash Mishra Vs Satyanarayan Tarai — Property and Title | Orissa HC (2018)

¶1

CMP No.202 of 2018

¶2

5 14.12.2018 This petition challenges the order dated 11.01.2018 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bhubaneswar in C.S No.1759 of 2009.

¶3

¶4

This case has a chequered history. This is the third round of litigation. Since dispute lies in a narrow compass, suffice it to say that the plaintiffopposite party instituted a suit for eviction of the defendant-petitioner from the suit house and for damages. After conclusion of evidence, learned trial judge issued notice to the Headmaster, Capital High School, Unit-III, Bhubaneswar and Sub-Registrar, Bhubaneswar to produce the school leaving certificate and the deed acknowledging adoption respectively. The learned trial judge held that the documents are necessary for effectual adjudication of the lis. The order was passed since photostat copy of the documents are available on record. Pursuant to issuance of summons, Junior Clerk of Capital High School was examined as a court witness and documents had been marked as exhibits. Assailing the same, the plaintiff approached this Court in CMP No.1076 of 2017. A Bench of this Court disposed of the petition on 9.11.2017 with an observation that if any contingency arises, then issue should be decided taking into consideration the

¶5

¶6

submissions of the parties. While the matter stood thus, on 20.11.2017 learned trial judge came to hold that the documents which have been marked as exhibits are required for proper adjudication of the lis. Challenging the same, the plaintiff approached this Court in CMP No.1513 of 2017. The petition was disposed of on 12.12.2017 with a direction to the learned trial judge to proceed with the matter in terms of the order dated 9.11.2017 passed in CMP No.1076 of 2017. Thereafter, by order dated 11.1.2018 learned trial judge passed an elaborate order holding that in view of the specific order passed by this Court, the court lacks jurisdiction to call for the documents and mark the same as exhibits. The order would tantamount to overreach the order passed by the court.

¶7

Heard Mr. A. Mahanta, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Tripathy, learned counsel for the opposite party.

¶8

Mr. Mahanta, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the documents are highly necessary for effectual adjudication of the lis. A direction may be issued to the learned trial judge to summon the Sub-Registrar to produce the deed acknowledging adoption.

¶9

Per contra, Mr. Tripathy, learned counsel for

¶10

¶11

the opposite party submits that the petitioner is a tenant. The evidence from both the sides is closed. The suit was heard. At this juncture, learned trial judge issued summons to the Headmaster of Capital High School, Unit-III, Bhubaneswar. A junior clerk of the school was examined as a court witness and the documents had been marked as exhibits. The documents are not necessary for proper adjudication of the lis.

¶12

Plaintiff-opposite party filed the suit for eviction against the defendant-petitioner and for damages. Order sheet reveals that the evidence from both the sides is over. The suit was posted to 24.8.2017 for argument. Learned trial judge heard the argument. At this juncture, learned trial judge issued notice to the Headmaster, Capital High School, Unit-III, Bhubaneswar and Sub-Registrar, Bhubaneswar to adduce evidence. The order was passed basing on the documents obtained under the RTI Act. Pursuant to the order passed by the learned trial judge, one junior clerk of the Capital High School, Bhubaneswar was examined as a court witness and the documents had been marked as exhibits. The matter has travelled to this Court twice. In the meantime one year five months elapsed. In a given case, if the tenant disputes that there is no

¶13

¶14

landlord and tenant relationship, it is open to the tenant to prove the same. Learned trial judge is perfectly justified in posting the matter for argument.

¶15

In view of the fact that the matter is posted

¶16

after one year five months for argument, learned trial judge shall hear the argument of the parties in the 1^st week of January, 2019 and pronounce the judgment.

¶17

The petition is dismissed.

¶18

Dr.A.K.Rath, J.

Om Prakash Mishra v. Satyanarayan Tarai

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Om Prakash Mishra v. Satyanarayan Tarai

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nandu Mohanty Vs Authorised Officer-Cum-Aast. Conservator of Forest, Baripada Division, Baripada and Others

Ashamani Tripathy Vs the Commissioner,Consolidation,S and L Records,Bbsr

Budhadev Sahoo Vs State of Orissa

M/S.Hallmark Ornaments Pvt. Ltd. Vs Satyanarayan Dash@Tarai

Prasanna Ku.Das Vs State

M/S.Diversified Sanket Pvt. Ltd,Bbsr Vs State of Orissa