The High Court of Orissa at Cuttack allowed a civil revision petition to set aside a trial court order that admitted late documents to challenge the plaintiff's status based on alleged non-pecuniary pleas and lack of preliminary notice.
Impugned order recalling witness and producing documents set aside; CMP allowed to the said extent.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CMP NO. 698 OF 2023
Madan Behera and others
…. Petitioners
Mr. Bibhudhananda Muduli, Advocate
-versus-
Kulamani Behera and another
…. Opp. Parties
Mr. Ajit Chandra Mohapatra, Advocate
CORAM:
JUSTICE K.R. MOHAPATRA
ORDER
Order No.
03.11.2023
Page 1 of 4
// 2 //
made in the plaint nor there is any denial to the same in the written statement. The Plaintiff in his petition also does not mention as to how those documents are relevant for just adjudication of the suit. In the list of documents, the Plaintiff also does not rely upon those documents. Learned trial Court most mechanically holding that the documents will help in arriving at a just conclusion of the suit, allowed the application. He, therefore, prays for setting aside the impugned order under Annexure-8. Hence, this CMP has been filed.
Page 2 of 4
// 3 //
Party No.1 to recall P.W.1 for further examination and another application was filed to admit the aforesaid documents in evidence through P.W.1. On perusal of the petition under Annexure-5 filed for recall of P.W.1, it appears that no case is made out under Order XVIII Rule 17 C.P.C. to allow the prayer made therein, more particularly when two witnesses on behalf of the Defendants have already been examined. It further appears from Annexure-4 that the petition was filed for admitting the registered deed of acknowledgement of adoption, Voter Identity Car as well as Adhar and Ration Card in evidence, but no case under Order VII Rule 14 C.P.C. has been made out. The documents sought to be admitted in evidence by the Plaintiff are not included in the list of documents appended to the plaint. No pleading in respect of those documents is available either in the plaint or in the written statement. Only because D.Ws.1 and 2 challenged the status of the Plaintiff (P.W.1) to claim for partition, prayer made in the petitions under Annexures-4 and 5 should not have been allowed, that too at such a belated stage. On perusal of the impugned order, it appears that learned trial Court has not delved into the aforesaid aspects of position of law while dealing with the petitions. Learned trial Court merely observing that the documents will help in arriving at a just conclusion of the suit and delay in filing the petitions can be compensated through cost, allowed the application. Such a ground for allowing the petitions under Annexures-4 and 5 is not sustainable.
Page 3 of 4
// 4 //
Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper
application.
bks
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed Signed by: BIJAY KUMAR SAHOO Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, C utta ck Date: 06-Nov-2023 18:09:37
Page 4 of 4
2 issues framed by the court
Whether documents sought to be produced at a belated stage to contradict prior evidence should be admitted under Order VII Rule 14 CPC.
Whether the trial Court erred in allowing recall of a witness to admit documents not foreseen at the time of evidence closure.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Madan Behera and others
Kulamani Behera
K.R. Mohapatra
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
