Partly allowed

Chakrapani Behera v. Kanaka Das

Orissa HC17 Nov 2023CMP/702/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Orissa disposed of a Civil Revision Petition challenging an order rejecting application for production of documents. The Court refused production of documents without plaint reference but allowed a separate set upon the respondent's objection.

What did the court decide?

Documents at Serial Nos. 3 and 4 allowed to be produced subject to admissibility; documents at Serial Nos. 1 and 2 not allowed.

Chakrapani Behera Vs Kanaka Das — Property and Title | Orissa HC (2023)

¶1

Signature Not Verified

¶2

Digitally Signed Signed by: ROJALIN NAYAK Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CU TTACK Date: 20-Nov-2023 11:11:30

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶4

CMP NO.702 OF 2023

¶5

Chakrapani Behera and another

¶6

…. Petitioners

¶7

Mr. Dayananda Mohapatra, Advocate

¶8

-versus-

¶9

Kanaka Das and another …. Opp. Parties

¶10

Mr. Ambika Prasad Mishra, Advocate

¶11

CORAM:

¶12

JUSTICE K.R. MOHAPATRA ORDER

Order No.

17.11.2023

This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

¶17

Order dated 23^rd March, 2023 (Annexure-5) passed by learned Senior Civil Judge, Khalikhote in CS No.24 of 2013 is under challenge in this CMP, whereby an application filed by the Plaintiffs-Petitioners under Order VII Rule 14(3) CPC, has been rejected.

¶18

It is submitted by Mr. Mohapatra, learned counsel for the Petitioners that the list of documents appended to the petition under Order VII Rule 14(3) CPC could not be filed along with the plaint. Reference to the documents sought to be produced could not be made in the petition filed under Order VII Rule 14(3) CPC inadvertently, but the Plaintiffs-Petitioners have referred to those documents in the plaint though not specifically.

¶19

It is submitted Mr. Mohapatra, learned counsel for the Petitioners that the Plaintiffs at para 3 of the plaint has stated that after the partition was effected prior to the last settlement operation, some of the co-sharers have sold portion of the suit land out of their respective shares to different persons. One such registered sale

¶20

Page 1 of 4

¶21

Signature Not Verified

¶22

// 2 //

¶23

Digitally Signed Signed by: ROJALIN NAYAK Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CU TTACK Date: 20-Nov-2023 11:11:30

¶24

deed has been referred to in the said paragraph as RSD No.511/1982. The sale deeds at Serial Nos.1 and 2 of the list, i.e., RSD No.875 of 1982 and 877 of 1982 are two of those documents evidencing transaction by the co-sharers.

¶25

It is also submitted that the Petitioners have referred to the RORs at Serial Nos. 3 and 4 of the list of documents, at para 2 of the plaint. Learned trial Court, without discussing the matter in its proper perspective, held that the documents were filed at a belated stage and the list of documents appended to the plaint did not contain those documents. As such, the CMP has been filed. It is his submission that allowing Petitioners to produce those documents, will not amount to admission of these documents in evidence. The Plaintiffs have to go through the rigors of admission of those documents. In the instant case, trial of the suit has not yet commenced. Hence, the Plaintiffs should have been allowed to produce their documents subject to their admissibility in evidence.

¶26

Mr. Mishra, learned counsel for the Opposite Parties submits that he has no objection if the documents at Serial Nos.3 and 4 are allowed to be produced by the Plaintiffs, as those are the Hal ROR. Of course, the Plaintiffs could have produced those documents by obtaining the certified copy along with the plaint. He, however, submits that there is no reference to the documents at Serial Nos.1 and 2 of the list. The description of documents at serial Nos.1 and 2 is also not available either in the plaint or in the petition under Order VII Rule 14(3) CPC. Hence, relevancy of those documents is in dark. As such, learned trial Court has

¶27

Page 2 of 4

¶28

Signature Not Verified

¶29

// 3 //

¶30

Digitally Signed Signed by: ROJALIN NAYAK Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CU TTACK Date: 20-Nov-2023 11:11:30

¶31

committed no error rejecting the Petition under Order VII Rule 14(3) CPC.

¶32

Considering the submission made by learned counsel for the parties, it is apparent that some reference has been made in the plaint about the documents at Serial Nos. 3 and 4 of the list appended to the petition under Order VII Rule 14(3) CPC. But so far as the documents at Serial Nos. 1 and 2 are concerned, no reference has been made to those documents either in the plaint or in the petition under Order VII Rule 14(3) CPC.

¶33

Although, Mr. Mohapatra, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that those documents have been referred to at para 2 and 3 of the plaint, this Court does not find reference to those documents in those paragraphs. It is, however, submitted that although no specific reference to those documents has been made, but the transaction referred to at para 3 of the plaint relates to those documents only. Neither in the plaint nor in the petition under Order VII Rule 14(3) CPC, relevancy of documents at Serial Nos.1 and 2 has been made. Thus, this Court finds it difficult to come to a conclusion that those documents are, in fact, necessary for proper adjudication of the suit. Since no material is available on record, this Court finds that the documents at serial Nos.1 and 2 have no nexus or relation to the subject matter of dispute in the suit. As such, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned order to that effect.

¶34

However, the documents at Serial Nos.3 and 4 may be allowed to be produced by the Plaintiffs-Petitioners subject to their admissibility in evidence.

¶35

Page 3 of 4

¶36

// 4 //

¶37

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: ROJALIN NAYAK Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CU TTACK Date: 20-Nov-2023 11:11:30

¶38

Since the suit is of the year 2013, learned trial Court shall do well to see that the suit is disposed of at an early date without granting unnecessary/long adjournments to either of the parties.

¶39

Parties are directed to cooperate with learned trial Court for early disposal of the suit.

¶40

With the aforesaid observation and modification in the impugned order under Annexure-5, the CMP is disposed of.

¶41

Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper

¶42

application.

¶43

(K.R. Mohapatra) Judge

¶44

Rojalin

¶45

Page 4 of 4

Chakrapani Behera v. Kanaka Das

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chakrapani Behera v. Kanaka Das

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

Umar Alli @Sk.Umar Vs Fatma Bibi

Sonali Priyadarshini Vs State of Odisha

Judhistira Pradhan Vs Susanta Pradhan

Golap Ch.Sahu Vs Ajay Ku.Jena

Dasarathi Behera Vs State of Odisha

Alapana Basumallick Vs Shree Jagannath Mahaprabhu Bije Srikhetra, Puri