Dismissed

Gedla Gopal Krishna @ G.Gopal Krishna v. Ummudu Chittibabu @ G.Chittibabu

Orissa HC22 Jul 2022CMP/555/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A Civil Miscellaneous Petition challenging the admission of documents under the Right to Information Act was dismissed. The Court held that while admission is belated, the trial court exercised its discretion properly to allow documents for just adjudication, distinguishing between admission and proof.

What did the court decide?

The Civil Miscellaneous Petition challenging the impugned order is dismissed.

Gedla Gopal Krishna @ G.Gopal Krishna Vs Ummudu… — RTI and Transparency | Orissa HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CMP No.555 OF 2022

¶2

Gedela Gopal Krishna @ G. Gopal Petitioners Krishna and others

¶3

Mr. Rabindranath Prusty, Advocate -versus-

¶4

Gummudu Chittibabu @ G. Chittibabu and others

¶5

…. Opp. Parties

¶6

CORAM:

¶7

JUSTICE K.R. MOHAPATRA

ORDER

Order No.

22.07.2022

This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

¶13

This CMP has been filed assailing the order dated 20^th April, 2022 (Annexure-3) passed by learned Senior Civil Judge, Parlakhemundi, Gajapati in C.S. No.17 of 2019, whereby he allowed an application under Order VII Rule 14(3) C.P.C. filed by the Plaintiff-Opposite Party No.1 for admission of certain documents as per the list appended to the said application.

¶14

Mr. Prusty, learned counsel submits that the Defendants are the Petitioners in this CMP. After examination of six witnesses, the Plaintiffs filed an application to produce fifteen numbers of documents by obtaining the same under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (for short ‘the Act’) as well as certified copy and office copy of some documents for being admitted in evidence. Such an application is not maintainable at a belated stage, when the trial has already commenced and proceeded substantially. It is his submission that document

¶15

Page 1 of 3

¶16

// 2 //

¶17

sought to be produced in Court by the Plaintiff should be presented along with plaint and the list of documents. The Plaintiff had filed certain documents along with the plaint, which are taken into consideration and admitted into evidence. After examination of six witnesses, in order to drag the litigation, the Plaintiff filed an application under Order VII Rule 14(3) C.P.C. to admit fifteen numbers of documents without explaining the necessity for admission into evidence. Such an application to admit the documents at a belated stage is not maintainable. In that view of the matter, he prays for setting aside the impugned order under Annexure-3.

¶18

Taking into consideration the submission made by learned counsel for the Petitioners and on perusal of the record, it appears that after examination of six witnesses, the Petitioners obtained certain documents under the Act and also intended to file the certified copy and office copy of some documents, more- fully described in the list appended to the said petition from Serial Nos.1 to 15 and prayed to receive those documents to be admitted into evidence.

¶19

Learned trial Court holding that acceptance of documents to be marked as Exhibits does not amount to proof of such documents allowed such application. Law is well settled that even if a document is admitted in evidence, the party producing it must prove the same in accordance with law, which can be considered at the time of hearing. Although at a belated stage, it does not prohibit the Court to exercise its

Page 2 of 3

// 3 //

discretion in accepting certain documents into evidence to be marked as exhibits for just adjudication of the suit.

¶24

In view of the above, I find no infirmity in the impugned order under Annexure-3.

¶25

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

¶26

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

¶27

(K.R. Mohapatra)

¶28

Judge

¶29

Page 3 of 3

Gedla Gopal Krishna @ G.Gopal Krishna v. Ummudu Chittibabu @ G.Chittibabu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gedla Gopal Krishna @ G.Gopal Krishna v. Ummudu Chittibabu @ G.Chittibabu

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

Gangotri Choudhury Vs State of Odisha

Suresh Sahoo Vs R.T.O., Rourkela

Jyoti Panda Vs Asutosh Mahapatra

Raghunath Mohanty Vs R.T.O., Cuttack

Lalchand Agarwal Vs R.T.O.,Talcher

Surya Kanta Pujhary Vs Commnr. Cum Secy. Co. Operation Dept., Bbsr