Birendra Kumar @ Chandra Bhanjdeo vs Dist Magistrate Cum Collector, Mayurbhanj And Others

M.S. Raman, J

This matter is taken up through Hybrid Mode.

Assailing an order dated 19.12.2023 passed in C.S. No.442 of 2014 by the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge, Baripada, whereby a petition dated 02.09.2023 filed by the petitioner-plaintiff to call for case record in T.S. No.103 of 1997 from the Court of learned Civil Judge (Junior Divisioin), Baripada has been rejected, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of an application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by way of filing this petition.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that only ground on which the petition calling for certain documents in T.S. No.103 of 1997 has been rejected is that the petitioner-plaintiff has not specified documents, which are to be called for the purpose of the present suit, being C.S. No.442 of 2014. He further submitted that since the documents forming part of T.S. No.103 of 1997 are legible and, being original, are required for the purpose of reference in the present C.S. No.442 of 2014, the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge, Baripada should not have refused.

Mr. A.K. Mishra, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for opposite party nos.1, 3 and 4 brought to notice of this Court that in the order impugned, it is clearly recorded that the petitioner-plaintiff has not specifically mentioned the documents which he wishes to rely upon for the purpose of reference by the learned trial Court.

4.1. It is further submitted that the petition to call for the case record in T.S. No.103 of 1997 is only to protract the proceeding in the suit, particularly when the petitioner-plaintiff has already exhibited the said documents before the trial Court.

4.2. It is also objected to by the learned Additional Government Advocate that after exhibiting the documents, the petitioner-plaintiff could not have filed the petition to call for the documents forming part of T.S. No.103 of 1997.

Be that as it may, it is conceded at the Bar that list of specific documents is required to be furnished by the petitioner-plaintiff to seek reference of the Court as the documents available in T.S. No.103 of 1997 are legible. There is no restriction in moving fresh petition by mentioning details of such documents required for the aforesaid purpose, which are available in the case record of T.S. No.103 of 1997, stated to be pending before the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Baripada.

Without expressing any opinion on merit, considering the aforesaid submission, the petitioner-plaintiff is at liberty to move appropriate petition before the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge, Baripada within a period of four weeks as submitted by learned counsel for both the parties.

In the event such a petition is filed within the time stipulated, the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge, Baripada shall consider the said petition as expeditiously as possible on its own merit.

With the aforesaid observation and direction, the CMP stands disposed of.

...……………………….