Abhiram Pani vs Hara Dibya And Another

K.R. Mohapatra, J

This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

Order dated 28th July, 2023 (Annexure-5) passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Jajpur in title Suit No.09 of 1995 is under challenge in this CMP, whereby an application to accept those documents and marked as Exhibits, has been rejected.

It is submitted by Mr. Nayak, learned counsel for the Petitioner that the suit has been filed by the Plaintiff-Petitioner claiming 1/4th share in Schedule-A property and 1/3rd share of Schedule-B property.

At the stage of argument, the Plaintiff-Petitioner filed an application to accept passbook of Kalinga Gramya Bank, Kuakhia, Adhhar Card issue by Central Government, Ration Card, Madhu Babu Pension Yojana Card, notice in land acquisition case vide P.R. No.1615 dated 27th May, 2009, certified copy of the Registered Sale deed dated 9th March, 1965, Voter Card in original as evidence. Learned trial Court rejected the said petition holding that the suit is at the stage of argument and it was a suit of year 1995. It is also observed that the evidence from both the sides have already been closed since 2005 and the matter is pending for argument. The documents so filed are not necessary for proper adjudication of the suit. On the aforesaid findings, the petition was rejected.

Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the said documents would show that the Plaintiff is the son of Danai Pani. Hence, those are necessary for just adjudication of the case. Learned trial Court without considering the same, has passed the impugned order. Hence, he prays for setting aside the impugned order and to direct learned trial Court to accept those documents.

Considering the submission made by learned counsel for the Petitioner and on perusal of the record, it appears that an application under Annexure-3 has been filed to accept the aforesaid documents to establish that the Plaintiff is the son of Danai Pani. But there is no explanation in the said petition as to why those documents could not be marked as Exhibits when the Plaintiff adduced evidence.

Admittedly, the said suit is of the year 1995 and the evidence in the suit has already been closed since 2005. Thus, at this belated stage, acceptance of those documents without explaining as to why it could not be filed at the time of adducing evidence by the Plaintiff will amount to reward the Plaintiffs for their default. It will also unnecessarily delay in disposal of the suit. There is also no material on record to show that the evidence adduced is not sufficient for just disposal of the suit. Hence, learned trial Court has committed no error in rejecting the application.

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

Learned trial Court shall make an endeavour to see that the argument in the suit is completed and the suit is disposed of expeditiously in accordance with law.

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

…………………………..