Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 79 (ORI)

Kshitish Chandra Mohanty v. Umesh Chandra Behera

2016-01-29

BISWANATH RATH

body2016
ORDER : 1. This matter arises out of rejection of an application under Order 16 Rule 21 of C.P.C. at the instance of plaintiff for issuing a direction to the defendant Nos. 2 & 3 to provide material particulars and the documents as indicated in the application considered vide the impugned order. 2. In assailing the impugned order, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that in view of specific pleadings made by the defendant Nos.2 & 3 in their written statement with regard to subsequent transfer of the disputed property and more particularly in view of x-examination of the defendants’ witnesses, the material information as well as the documents called for by way of the petition under Annexure-2 to this petition were relevant for the purpose of effective adjudication of the suit. It is in these context, learned counsel for petitioner contended that the trial Court has failed in appreciating the relevancy of the material information as well as the documents sought to be called for by the plaintiff and consequently, arrived at the wrong and illegal impugned order. 3. In referring to decisions as reported in AIR 1989 (Ori.) 52 in between Janakiballav Pattanaik vs. Bennett Coleman and Co. Ltd. and Others, 2012 (3) Civil Court Cases 1 (SC) in between A. Shanmugom vs. Ariya Kshatriya Rajakula Vamsathu Madalaya Nandhabana Paripalnai Sangam represented by its President etc. AIR 1961 (M.P.) 348 in a case in between Puny Kalu & Another vs. Sankar Katu, 2013 (2) Civil Court Cases 139 (Kerala) in between AVS Samithi vs. Paulosi, 2003 (1) Civil Court Cases 456 (P&H) in between Sharvan Kumar vs. Sumeet Kumar Garg learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the dispute with regard to consideration of relevancy of material information as well as documents called for by the plaintiff has been considered again and again by different Courts and in the above decisions, the position have been settled by deciding the case in favour of the petitioner. 4. On the contrary, learned counsel for the opposite party Nos.2 & 3 contended that the claim of the petitioner involved in the application under Order 16 Rule 21 is beyond the pleading and further contended that the evidence in the matter is already closed leaving any scope for calling the above at this stage. 4. On the contrary, learned counsel for the opposite party Nos.2 & 3 contended that the claim of the petitioner involved in the application under Order 16 Rule 21 is beyond the pleading and further contended that the evidence in the matter is already closed leaving any scope for calling the above at this stage. It is next contended that the petitioner has failed in establishing as to the relevancy of the materials information as well as the documents called for in the application decided by the impugned order. Further the plaintiff cannot be permitted to call for information and documents basing upon the statements came by way of x-examination. It is next contended that the trial Court has come to right conclusion that there is absolutely no relevancy of the material information as well as the documents called for by the plaintiff and the impugned order need not be interfered with. 5. During course of argument, Mr. A.R. Dash, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner fairly admitted that there is neither any pleading on the material information as well as the documents called for by way of the application under Order 16 Rule 21 of C.P.C. but because of the statements made by the witnesses from the side of defendants during cross examination, there was necessity for filing such application and the trial Court has measurably failed in appreciating the above aspect. 6. From perusal of the averments made in the written statement, this Court does not find any whisper on the material information as well as the documents called for in the application by the plaintiff either in the plaint or in the written statement. There is also no issue involving the documents sought for and the material information. Further, looking to the position of the suit that the evidence from both the sides are already closed, this Court observes that calling for documents or material information after closure of evidence will have no relevancy as neither the information nor the documents will have any bearing in the ultimate decision of the suit. Particularly, keeping in view that there is totally absence of pleading either in the plaint or in the written statement involving the issues raised herein the request also becomes redundant. 7. Particularly, keeping in view that there is totally absence of pleading either in the plaint or in the written statement involving the issues raised herein the request also becomes redundant. 7. From perusal of the decision cited by the learned counsel for petitioner, this Court finds that in view of the difference in the facts situation in all the cases cited with the case taken up, this Court feels none of the decision supports the case of petitioner. However, looking to the observation of the Madhya Pradesh High Court as reported in AIR 1961 (MP) 348 made in paragraph No.7, this Court finds the Madhya Pradesh High Court has the following the observation:- “7. If it is oral evidence, or material of patently doubtful nature coming into existence after the commencement of the dispute, then the Court should not allow it to be adduced at any late stage. On the other hand, if it is prima facie non-suspect, being any public document, and if it existed before the Commencement of the dispute, then the court may suo motu ask the party interested to produce it.” In view of the above, this Court finds the decision cited by the petitioner rather supports the case of the opposite parties. 8. In view of the observation made hereinabove and the clear position of law that no material information or documents can be relied upon in a suit in absence of pleading, this Court finds no force in the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner and consequently, this Court also finds no infirmity in the impugned order thereby, dismisses this Civil Miscellaneous Petition for having no merit. However, there is no order as to cost. 9. In view of dismissal of this petition, interim order passed earlier stands vacated and all the pending Misc. Cases arising out of this petition stand rejected.