Jatindra @ Jatindranath Sahoo vs Nityananda Sahu And Others

K.R. Mohapatra, J

This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

The Petitioner in this CMP seeks to assail the order dated 3rd August, 2023 (Annexure-8) passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bhadrak in C.S. No.272 of 2003, whereby an application filed by the Petitioner for production of certain documents, has been rejected.

Mr. Dhal, learned Senior Advocate submits that while adjudicating the matter, learned trial Court did not at all applied its mind to the list of documents vis-a-vis the pleadings made in the written statement filed by Defendant No.2. It is submitted that at Paragraph-14 of the written statement, it has been categorically stated that during life time of Jogendra Sahu, Defendant No.2, his mother and Jogendra Sahu himself had mortgaged some portion of the suit land to other persons. But, in fact, the land was sold by Defendant No.2, his mother and Jogendra Sahu to one, Mayadhar Khuntia in the year, 1949 vide Registered Sale Deed. Further in the said paragraph, it is stated that in 1966, a civil suit was filed by Ghanashyam Rout and others against Jogendra Sahu and the Defendant No.2 and the suit was decreed on compromise. The decree passed in C.S. No.203 of 1966 refers to the said compromise decree. Further in order to establish that Defendant No.2 is the son of Jadunath Sahu, the Defendant No.2 intended to rely upon the voter lists at Serial Nos.7 and 8 of the list of documents at Annexure-3. Learned trial Court while adjudicating the petition did not refer to the materials available on record and passed the impugned order observing that the Defendant himself intentionally did not file the documents at the appropriate stage of the suit despite having opportunity.

It is his submission that the rigors of filing of the documents with the plaint is not applicable to filing of the documents along with the written statement. It can be accepted subsequently. At present, the Defendant No.2-Petitioner is being examined and he is adducing his evidence. Thus, there is no difficulty to accept those documents. He, therefore, prays for setting aside the impugned order under Annexure-8 and to direct learned trial Court to accept the documents as per the list at Annexure-3.

Upon hearing Mr. Dhal, learned Senior Advocate and on perusal of the record, it appears that there is no mention about sale deed at Paragraph-14 of the written statement filed by Defendant No.2-Petitioner. It only reflects a mortgaged deed executed by Defendant No.2, his mother and Jogendra Sahu. There is also no material on record to co-relate the Registered Sale Deed dated 28th November, 1949 with the pleading at Paragraph-14 of the written statement, as alleged by the Defendant No.2. However, there is mention of a civil suit of 1966 in the said paragraph. As such, learned trial Court could have considered acceptance of documents filed by the Petitioner at serial No.2 of the list of documents at Annexure-3, i.e., certified copy of the decree passed in C.S. No.203 of 1966. Further keeping in mind the averments at Paragraphs-12 and 13 of the written statement to the effect that the Petitioner-Defendant No.2 is the son of Jadunath Sahoo, the Petitioner intends to produce certified copy of the voter lists of Bhadrak Assembly Constituency at Serial Nos.7 and 8. There may not be any difficulty to permit the Petitioner to produce the documents at Serial Nos.7 and 8 of the list of documents at Annexure-3.

These aspects were not taken into consideration by learned trial Court while adjudicating the petition. Hence, keeping in mind that the suit is of the year, 2003, this Court does not feel it proper to issue notice in the matter awaiting response from the Plaintiffs-Opposite Parties. The same would further delay in disposal of the suit.

Accordingly, this Court sets aside the impugned order under Annexure-8 and remits the matter back to learned trial Court to adjudicate the petition afresh keeping in mind the observations made hereinabove and giving opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merit of the petition for production of documents as per the list at Annexure-3.

The CMP is accordingly disposed of.

Since the CMP is disposed of without issuing notice to the Opposite Party No.1, the Plaintiff, he is at liberty to seek for variation of this order, if he feels aggrieved.

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

……………………..