Rajib Kumar Pujhari Vs Jyotshna Sahu

¶1

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SASANKA SEKHAR SATAPATHY Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA CU TTACK Date: 20-Jun-2025 19:48:53

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶3

CMP No. 138 of 2025

¶4

Rajib Kumar Pujhari and others

¶5

… Petitioners

¶6

Mr. K.K.Jena, Advocate -versus-

¶7

Jyotshna Sahu … Opposite Party

¶8

CORAM:

¶9

JUSTICE K.R. MOHAPATRA

ORDER

Order No.

20.06.2025

This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

¶15

Order dated 29^th October, 2024 (Annexure-2) passed by learned Additional Civil Judge, Sambalpur in CS No.42 of 2021 is under challenge in this CMP whereby an application filed by the Petitioners/Defendants under Order XI Rule 14 CPC, has been rejected.

¶16

Mr. Jena, learned counsel for the Petitioners submits that in course of examination of witnesses of the Plaintiff, Defendants/Petitioners filed an application under Order XI Rule 14 CPC to direct the Plaintiff to produce the gift deed, which was executed by Sankar Prasad Sahu and others in favour of the Plaintiff relating to the suit property. It is stated in the petition that PW-1/Plaintiff categorically admitted in her evidence that she became the owner of the suit property on the basis of the gift deed executed by said Sankar Prasad Sahu and others in her favour. PW-2 also admitted that they have executed the gift deed in favour the Plaintiff relating the suit property. It is alleged by the Petitioners that one Bideshi Sanbad was a witness and

¶17

Page 1 of 3

¶18

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SASANKA SEKHAR SATAPATHY Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA CU TTACK Date: 20-Jun-2025 19:48:53

¶19

// 2 //

¶20

Chittaranjan Sanbad, an Advocate of Sambalpur was the scribe of the said gift deed as per the instruction of Sankar Prasad Sahu and others in favour of the Plaintiff. The said witness and the scribe of both the gift deed and the agreement for sale are one and the same. Hence, the Defendants/Petitioners prayed for production of the said gift deed to be produced by the Plaintiff for proper adjudication of the suit. Mr. Jena, learned counsel, therefore submits that genuineness of the sale deed executed in favour of the Defendants is in question in the suit. Thus, in order to prove that the has Plaintiff acquired title by virtue of the gift deed and has executed the sale deed having right, title and interest thereon, the gift deed, which is in her custody, is required to be produced by the Plaintiff. Learned trial Court failed to appreciate the same and passed the impugned order. Hence, being aggrieved, the Defendants have filed this CMP.

¶21

Considering the submission made by learned counsel for the Petitioners and on perusal of the record, it is ascertained that genuineness of the sale deed is in question in the suit. It is alleged that the sale deed in question executed by the Plaintiff is an outcome of fraud. There is nothing in the petition under Order XI Rule 14 CPC from which, it can be ascertained that genuineness of the sale deed can be established by production of the gift deed. It appears from the petition under Order XI Rule 14 CPC that the gift deed was sought to be produced to show that the witness and the scribe of the sale deed as well as the gift deed are one and the

¶22

Page 2 of 3

¶23

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SASANKA SEKHAR SATAPATHY Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA CU TTACK Date: 20-Jun-2025 19:48:53

¶24

// 3 //

¶25

same. There is nothing on record to show that by establishing the same, the genuineness of the sale deed will be proved.

¶26

4.1 In that view of the matter, this Court is of the considered opinion that no ground is made out by the Defendants/Petitioners under Order XI Rule 14 CPC to direct the Plaintiff to produce gift deed, as rightly held` by learned trial Court.

¶27

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

¶28

(K.R. Mohapatra) Judge

¶29

s.s.satpathy

¶30

Page 3 of 3

Rajib Kumar Pujhari v. Jyotshna Sahu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajib Kumar Pujhari v. Jyotshna Sahu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S.Odisha Mining Co. Vs Union of India

Deity Sri Radhakanta Mahaprabhu,Bije,Randha Vs Radhakrushna Sahu

M/S. Maithan Ispat Limited Vs State of Odisha

Anwarul Haque Vs Mohibul Haque

Basanti Khilar Vs Nimain Mohanty

Shantilata Satapathy @ Kar Vs Subash Chandra Sahoo