Anand Kumar Awasti Vs Dinesh Kumar Jain

Signature Not Verified

Digitally Signed Signed by: MADHUSMITA SAHOO Designation: Senior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 08-May-2024 11:53:24

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶4

CMP No. 223 OF 2024

¶5

Anand Kumar Awasti

¶6

…. Petitioner

¶7

Mr. Priya Ranjan Mishra, Advocate on behalf of

¶8

Mr. Shambhu Charan Nath Sharma, Advocate

¶9

-versus-

¶10

Dinesh Kumar Jain and others

¶11

…. Opp. Parties

¶12

CORAM:

¶13

JUSTICE K.R. MOHAPATRA

ORDER

Order No.

07.05.2024

This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

¶19

Order dated 30^th November, 2023 (Annexure-4) passed in C.S. No.165 of 2004 is under challenge in this CMP, whereby learned Senior Civil Judge (LR & LTV), Jharsuguda rejected an application filed by the Defendant No.2-Petitioner with a prayer not to admit certain statement of a witness recorded by the Court.

¶20

Mr. Mishra, learned counsel being authorized by Mr. Sharma, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that during cross-examination of boundary witness, namely, Sri Bimal Kumar Khaitan, being examined on behalf of Defendant No.2, a question was put by the Plaintiff in cross-examination with regard to his conviction in a criminal case. The Defendant No.2 raised serious objection to it and submitted that the said question has got no relevancy for adjudication of the suit. It tarnishes the reputation of the witness. Hence, the answer to the said question should not be recorded. Learned trial Court holding that the

¶21

Page 1 of 3

¶22

// 2 //

¶23

Signature Not Verified

¶24

Digitally Signed Signed by: MADHUSMITA SAHOO Designation: Senior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 08-May-2024 11:53:24

¶25

relevancy of the said answer can be considered at the time of argument, rejected the petition. Hence, this CMP has been filed. 4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the Petitioner that the suit is filed for declaration of right, title, interest over Schedule ‘A’ land and confirmation of possession along with permanent injunction as well as for other ancillary and consequential reliefs. Thus, conviction of the witness in a criminal case does not have any bearing on adjudication of the suit. In order to demoralize the witness, such a question was put. Although the witness was convicted in a criminal case, but appeal against the said judgment of conviction is pending before the competent court of law. Since the question does not have any relevancy to the subject matter of dispute, a petition was filed not to record such statement. Learned trial Court without considering the same in its proper perspective, rejected the objection stating that the relevancy of said statement shall be considered at the time of argument of the suit. He, therefore, prays for setting aside the impugned order under Annexure-4. 5. Taking note of the submission made by learned counsel for the Petitioner and on perusal of the record, it appears that the suit is filed for declaration of right, title, interest and permanent injunction as well as for ancillary and consequential reliefs. One, Sri Bimal Kumar Khaitan, S/o late Kailash Khaitan was being examined on behalf of Defendant No.2 as a boundary witness. In cross-examination, the Plaintiff put a suggestion that the witness was involved in a criminal case and was ultimately convicted. Serious objection to the same was raised by learned counsel for

¶26

Page 2 of 3

¶27

// 3 //

¶28

Signature Not Verified

¶29

Digitally Signed Signed by: MADHUSMITA SAHOO Designation: Senior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 08-May-2024 11:53:24

¶30

Defendant No.2 stating that it has got no relevancy for adjudication of the suit. A petition to that effect was also filed under Annexure-3. Learned trial Court holding that the relevancy of such statement shall be considered at the time of argument, rejected the petition.

¶31

On perusal of the impugned order under Annexure-4, it appears that after recording of the statement as stated above, the petition under Annexure-3 was filed not to record the same. A statement made by the witness either in examination-in-chief or cross-examination, should not be expunged in the midst of the trial, in absence of any compelling circumstance. In the instant case, no such circumstance has been pointed out by the Petitioner to expunge or delete the same. The petition only discloses that such a statement demoralizes the witness and it lowers the prestige of the witness. This being a matter of record, no exception should have been taken by the Defendant No.2 to the same. However, learned trial Court has observed that the relevancy of such statement shall be considered at the time of argument. Hence, I find no infirmity in the impugned order under Annexure-4.

¶32

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

¶33

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

¶34

(K.R. Mohapatra) Judge

¶35

ms

¶36

Page 3 of 3

Anand Kumar Awasti v. Dinesh Kumar Jain

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anand Kumar Awasti v. Dinesh Kumar Jain

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Z.Josheph Vs Pawan Kumar Sharma

Kali Charan Rout Vs State of Odisha

Durgesh Nandini Dash Vs Renuka Manjari Das

Bijay Kumar Das Vs Tilotama Das

Subhasis Tripathy Vs State of Odisha

Satyjit Roychoudhury Vs State of Odisha