Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 701 (ORI)

Kulabati Passayat v. Hemanta Kumar Purohit

2015-12-15

BISWANATH RATH

body2015
ORDER : Biswanath Rath, J. 1. Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respective parties. 2. This matter arises out of an order dated 13.08.2010 passed by the trial court on an application under Order 12, Rule 2 of C.P.C. at the instance of the plaintiff to issue notice to the defendant No. 7 for admitting the Registered Sale Deed dated 6.1.2003 & 22.6.1988. 3. In assailing the impugned order, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that even though the documents have been marked with objection but the contents of the documents could not be marked during examination of the defendants and in view of relevancy of the documents as well as appropriate decision in the suit, the application at the instance of the plaintiff ought to have been allowed and the trial Court having failed in appreciating the submission of the plaintiff arrived at wrong conclusion/order, which needs to be set-aside. 4. Learned counsel for the opposite parties on the other hand submitted that the suit involves declaring the sale deed dated 30.07.2004 executed by the defendant Nos. 5 to 7 as void and it is in this context, learned counsel for the opposite parties contended that first of all nothing prevented the plaintiff to adduce evidence with regard to the contents of the sale deed dated 6.1.2003 & 22.6.1988 when the defendant Nos. 5 to 7 were examined and further submitted that in view of the specific prayer in the suit, there is also otherwise no necessity for bringing these two documents within the purview of the suit. 5. Looking to the prayer made in the writ petition, the prayer No. 'A' reads as follows: "The Registered Sale Deed dated 30.07.2004 executed by the defendants Nos. 5 to 7 be declared as void". 6. There is no denial that by way of the application under Order 12, Rule 2 of C.P.C. the plaintiff wanted to lead evidence in relation to the Registered Sale Deeds dated 6.1.2003 & 22.6.1988. Looking to the prayer made in the plaint and the contents of the documents sought to be introduced, this Court observes that the Registered Sale deeds dated 6.1.2003 & 22.6.1988 have no relevancy to the present suit. 7. Looking to the prayer made in the plaint and the contents of the documents sought to be introduced, this Court observes that the Registered Sale deeds dated 6.1.2003 & 22.6.1988 have no relevancy to the present suit. 7. This Court also finds from the observation of the trial Court in considering the application at the instance of the plaintiff that these two documents have already been brought in evidence through the defendants including the defendant No. 7 but marked with objection. In view of the observations of this Court as well as the observations made in the impugned order, this Court does not find any infirmity or illegality in the impugned order and refuses to interfere in the impugned order. 8. However, considering the submission of the parties, this Court directs the trial Court to dispose of the Civil Suit bearing C.S. No. 14/2005 within a period of three months from the date of communication of this order. 9. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed for having no merit. 10. All the pending Misc. Cases arising out of this petition stand disposed of accordingly.