Mahindra Pradhan vs Prem Sagar Dhurua And Others

K.R. Mohapatra, J

This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

Order dated 19th January, 2024 (Annexure-3) passed by learned Senior Civil Judge (LR & LTV), Jharsuguda in CS No.115 of 2013 is under challenge in this CMP, whereby an application filed by the Defendant No.6-Petitioner to call for the case record in CMC No.49 of 2007 filed under Section 145 (1) Cr.P.C. from the Court of Sub-Collector-cum-Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Jharsugura, has been rejected.

Mr. Mohanty, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the suit has been filed by the Plaintiff-Opposite Party No.1 for declaration of right, title and interest and other consequential relief. During pendency of the suit, an application under Order XVI Rule 6 CPC was filed by the Defendant No.6-Petitioner to call for the case record in CMC No.49 of 2007 from the Court of Sub-Collector-cum-Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Jharsugura. It is stated in the petition that earlier the Petitioner had applied for certified copy of the entire case record before the Sub-Collector-cum-Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Jharsugura which was rejected on the ground that “the record is not in my charge list”.

It is his submission that the Petitioner had purchased the land from one of the co-sharers, namely, Gopabandhu Pradhan-Defendant No.5 through Registered Sale Deed No.962/2006. The said original document has been filed in the proceeding under Section 145 Cr. P.C. When the application to get the certified copy of the entire case record was rejected, the Petitioner had no other alternative than to file an application under Order XVI Rule 6 CPC for the aforesaid relief.

It is his submission that the Registered Sale Deed filed in original before the Sub-Collector-cum-Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Jharsugura is necessary for just adjudication of the suit. Learned trial Court holding that the Petitioner was not a party to the proceeding under Section 145 Cr.P.C. and thus the order to be passed in the said proceeding would not be binding on the Petitioner, rejected the petition. He, therefore, prays for setting aside the impugned order under Annexure-3.

Taking note of the submission made by learned counsel for the Petitioner and on perusal of the record, it appears that vide Annexure-1, the Petitioner had filed an application under order XVI Rule 6 CPC to call for the entire case record in CMC No.49 of 2007 filed under Section 145 (1) Cr.P.C. It is submitted that the said proceeding is still pending in the Court of Sub-Collector-cum-Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Jharsugura. But, the copy application of the Petitioner appears to have been rejected on the ground that the case record is not in the charge list of the Sub-Collector-cum-Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Jharsugura. When the case record is not pending in the said court, an application to call for the entire case record from the Court of Sub-Collector-cum-Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Jharsugura is misnomer. On perusal of the petition under Annexure-1, it does not appear that the document, i.e., RSD No.962-2006 was filed before the Sub-Collector-cum-Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Jharsugura. It is also not known as to why the entire case record of the proceeding under Section 145 (1) Cr.P.C. is necessary to be called for.

In view of the above, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned order under Annexure-3.

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

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

…………………………..