Dismissed

Bhaskar Chandra Pattanaik v. Bidut Prava Pattanaik

Orissa HC14 Nov 2022CMP/1043/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

CMP filed challenging the dismissal of an application to call for specific documents for handwriting comparison. The court dismissed the writ, holding the petitioner's plea that such documents were available on record was not raised earlier and was barred after a prior order on the same issue had been confirmed.

What did the court decide?

The CMP is dismissed as it is devoid of merit. No orders for interim directions.

Bhaskar Chandra Pattanaik Vs Bidut Prava… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Orissa HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

CMP NO. 1043 OF 2022

¶3

Bhaskar Chandra Pattanaik

¶4

…. Petitioner

¶5

Mr. A. Mahanta, Advocate

¶6

-versus-

¶7

Bidut Prava Pattanaik and others …. Opp. Parties

¶8

Mr. Bhaskar Chandra Panda, Advocate

¶9

CORAM:

¶10

JUSTICE K.R. MOHAPATRA

ORDER

Order No.

14.11.2022

This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

¶16

The Petitioner in this CMP seeks to assail the order dated 13^th October, 2022 (Annexure-8) passed in Test Case No.26 of 2013 (arising out of O.S. No.5 of 2015), whereby learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Salipur rejected an application filed by him with a prayer to call for the records of family pension from the Sub-Treasury, Mahanga (PRO No. 33985 TBS) and also to call for the original records in OJC No. 14883 of 1994 from the record room of the High Court of Odisha for the purpose of sending the same to the handwriting expert for comparison.

¶17

Mr. Mahanta, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the test case has been filed for probate of the Will executed by one Niramani Dei in favour of the Petitioner. During pendency of the proceeding, the Defendants-Opposite Parties filed an application to send the Will along with admitted signature of said Niramani Dei for comparison to the

¶18

Page 1 of 4

¶19

// 2 //

¶20

handwriting expert. The said application was allowed vide order dated 10^th July, 2018 directing to send the Will executed by Niramani Dei and RSD (relinquishment deed) of the year, 1979 to the handwriting expert for comparison. Being aggrieved, the Petitioner filed CMP No. 48 of 2019, which was disposed of vide order dated 17^th May, 2022 confirming the order dated 10^th July, 2018. It is his submission that as yet documents have not been sent to the handwriting expert for comparison. In order to facilitate proper examination of those documents, the Petitioner filed a petition on 17^th September, 2022 (Annexure-6) to call for the aforesaid documents to be sent to the handwriting expert as those are documents in which contemporaneous signatures of the testatrix, namely, Niramani Dei Pattnaik, are available. Learned trial Court on a misconception of law that there is no law to send the contemporaneous documents for examination, rejected the said application. Hence, this CMP has been filed.

¶21

Mr. Panda, learned counsel for the Opposite Parties submits that in the application filed by the Defendants to send the RSD of 1979 along with the Will executed by Niramani Dei Pattnaik for comparison, the Petitioner had filed objection specifically stating that there is no contemporaneous documents containing signatures of Niramani Dei Pattnaik available to be examined. Considering such objection, the order dated 10^th July, 2018 was passed, which has already been confirmed by this Court in CMP No. 48 of 2019. Hence, the present application to call for certain documents is nothing but to circumvent the order dated 10^th July, 2018 passed earlier and to linger the proceeding.

¶22

Page 2 of 4

¶23

// 3 //

¶24

As such, learned trial Court has committed no error in rejecting the application.

¶25

Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record, this Court finds that the application filed by the Defendants for comparison of signature of Niramani Dei Pattnaik was allowed vide order dated 10^th July, 2018, which was assailed before this Court in CMP No. 48 of 2019. The said CMP has already been disposed of vide order dated 17^th May, 2022 without interfering with the impugned order. It is also submitted by Mr. Panda, learned counsel for the Opposite Parties that pursuant to the said order, the cost for sending the documents to the handwriting expert has already been deposited. The Petitioner although had an opportunity to raise the plea that the aforesaid documents containing contemporaneous signature of Niramani Dei Pattnaik are available on record, he for the reason best known to him did not raise such ground. On the other hand, he allegedly took a plea that no contemporaneous documents containing signature of said Niramani Dei Pattnaik is available as submitted by Mr. Panda, learned counsel for the Opposite Parties.

¶26

Since the Petitioner although had an opportunity did not raise such objection or plea to send documents containing contemporaneous signature of Niramani Dei Pattnaik for examination, such a plea at a belated stage is not available to him to be raised more particularly when the order dated 10^th July, 2018 has already been confirmed.

¶27

Page 3 of 4

¶28

// 4 //

¶29

In view of the above, I am not inclined to interfere with the impugned order.

¶30

Accordingly, the CMP being devoid of any merit stands dismissed.

¶31

Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application.

¶32

bks

¶33

(K.R. Mohapatra) Judge

¶34

Page 4 of 4

Bhaskar Chandra Pattanaik v. Bidut Prava Pattanaik

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhaskar Chandra Pattanaik v. Bidut Prava Pattanaik

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

Bharati Das Vs State of Odisha

Leela Sahoo Vs Narayan Prasad Nayak

Rabindra Biswal Vs State of Odisha

Pradyumna Kumar Jena Vs State of Odisha

Samir Samal Vs R.T.O.,Sundargarh

Sanjeeb Ku.Mallick Vs Ayashree Das@Mallick