Disposed¶25

Subhasish Sahoo v. Sanjushree Ray

Orissa HC7 Mar 2025CMP/28/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

CMP No.28 of 2022; High Court of Orissa at Cuttack; R.K. Pattanaik, J.; 07.03.2025; Subhasish Sahoo v. Sanjushree Ray & others; C.S. No.521 of 2012; Annexure-6; affidavit evidence of P.W.2; Order 16 Rule 1 C.P.C.; list of witnesses not furnished; defendant No.27; objection rejected; cost Rs.2000/- reduced to Rs.1000/-; cross-examination of P.W.2 allowed; impugned order modified; CMP disposed of.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner permitted to cross-examine P.W.2, with the Court below to proceed with the suit as per law; cost reduced from Rs.2000/- to Rs.1000/-, and the impugned order (Annexure-6) modified to that extent. ¶25

Subhasish Sahoo Vs Sanjushree Ray — Orissa HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶25

Issue for consideration

Whether the affidavit evidence of P.W.2 was validly received/accepted by the Court below notwithstanding that no list of witnesses was furnished in terms of Order 16 Rule 1 C.P.C. +1 more

¶18

Court's answer

The learned Court below committed no error or illegality in accepting the affidavit evidence of P.W.2 while declining to entertain an objection which could have been raised earlier; accordingly, no ground exists to interfere with the impugned order (Annexure-6) except on the cost.

¶23

Ratio / Principle

The cost of Rs.2000/- imposed under the impugned order was considered to be on the higher side.

¶23

Key takeaways

The CMP stands disposed of with direction to the Court below to allow the petitioner to cross-examine P.W.2 and thereafter deal with the suit as per law; the petitioner shall deposit cost of Rs.1000/- instead, and to that extent the impugned order (Annexure-6) is modified.ratio¶25

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Orissa High Court at Cuttack (R.K. Pattanaik, J.), order dated 07.03.2025 in CMP No.28 of 2022 — Subhasish Sahoo v. Sanjushree Ray & others. The petitioner, defendant No.27 in C.S. No.521 of 2012 before the learned 1st Additional Civil Judge (SD), Cuttack, challenged the order under Annexure-6 whereby the affidavit evidence of P.W.2 was accepted despite no list of witnesses having been furnished in terms of Order 16 Rule 1 C.P.C., his objection was rejected in view of his conduct, and a cost of Rs.2000/- was imposed. Holding that the Court below committed no error or illegality in accepting the affidavit evidence and that no ground existed to interfere except on the cost, the Court disposed of the CMP, directing that the petitioner be allowed to cross-examine P.W.2 and that the suit proceed as per law, while reducing the cost to Rs.1000/- and modifying Annexure-6 to that extent.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

CMP No.28 of 2022

Subhasish Sahoo

Petitioner

Mr. Sidharth Mishra, Advocate

¶6

-Versus-

¶7

Sanjushree Ray & others

¶8

…. Opposite Parties

¶9

Mr. K. Sahoo, Advocate for opposite party No.1

¶10

CORAM:

¶11

MR. JUSTICE R.K. PATTANAIK

ORDER

07.03.2025

Order No.

Heard Mr. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Ray, learned counsel for opposite party No.1.

¶17

Instant petition is filed by the petitioner challenging the impugned order under Annexure-6 passed in C.S. No.521 of 2012 by the learned 1^st Additional Civil Judge (SD), Cuttack on the grounds stated therein.

¶18

The submission of Mr. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner is that the affidavit evidence of P.W.2 was received but the same is not in terms of Order 16 Rule 1 C.P.C., as no list of witnesses was furnished, earlier.

¶19

Recorded the submission of Mr. Sahoo, learned counsel for opposite party No.1.

¶20

Gone through the impugned order as at Annexure-6 and the Court finds that the affidavit evidence was accepted and in view

¶21

Page 1 of 2

¶22

of the conduct of the petitioner as defendant No.27, the objection was rejected and cost was imposed.

¶23

Considering the submissions of learned counsel for both the sides and since such affidavit evidence is filed by P.W.2, the Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned order i.e. Annexure-6 on any such ground advanced, however, is of the view that imposing a cost of Rs.2000/- is on the higher side. In other words, the Court is of the view that learned Court below did not commit any error or illegality in accepting the affidavit evidence of P.W.2 denying to entertain any such objection, which could have been raised earlier and hence, no ground exists to interfere with the impugned order i.e. Annexure-6 except on the cost.

¶24

7. Accordingly, it is directed.

¶25

In the result, the CMP stands disposed of with the direction to learned Court below to allow the petitioner to cross-examine P.W.2 and thereafter, to proceed to deal with the suit as per and in accordance with law. The Court further directs that the petitioner shall deposit cost of Rs.1000/- instead and to that extent, the impugned order i.e. Annexure-6 is modified.

¶26

Urgent certified copy of this order be issued as per rules.

¶27

(R.K. Pattanaik) Judge

¶28

Balaram

¶29

Signature Not Verified

¶30

Digitally Signed Signed by: BALARAM BEHERA Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: OHC, CUTTACK Date: 10-Mar-2025 10:51:50

¶31

Page 2 of 2

Subhasish Sahoo v. Sanjushree Ray

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Subhasish Sahoo v. Sanjushree Ray

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Surendra Jani Vs State of Odisha

Sunil @ Sarat @ Sabyasachi Panda Vs State of Odisha

Raoute Soren @ Raute Soren Vs State of Odisha

Ashok Kumar Mohapatra Vs Charan Sethi

Nirakar Nayak Vs Collector Cum District Magistrate, Kandhamal, Phulbani

The Leela , Canteen No 1,ROURKELA Vs Arun Kumar Singh