Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 828 (ORI)

Lokanath Pattanaik v. Sanjay Kumar Ratsingh

2018-12-03

BISWANATH RATH

body2018
JUDGMENT Biswanath Rath, J. - This writ petition is filed assailing the order dated 2.5.2018, vide Anenxure-1 thereby rejecting an attempt of O.P.1 therein, the petitioner herein with a prayer to summon the Director of concerned Zone of Orami Service Cooperative Society for production of documents involving the petitioner therein, Sri. Lokanath Pattanaik and for appropriate evidence. Rejection of such application gave rise to a cause of action in favour of the present petitioner to approach this Court. 2. Assailing the impugned order, Sri. S.S.Pattnaik, learned counsel for the petitioner taking this court to the grounds contained in the application considered therein and the dispute involved in the Election Case contended that both calling of the loan document as well as the deposition of evidence involving the loan concerning Lokanath Pattnaik is relevant for the purpose of effective adjudication of the Election dispute involved herein. Taking this Court to the ground of rejection by the trial court, Sri. Pattnaik, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that even assuming that the petitioner had got the scope of calling for the document and having a scope of evidence through the witness already examined in oaths considering effective adjudication of the Election dispute, the trial court would have given an opportunity of recalling the witnesses already examined for the purpose involved herein. It is thus contended that the impugned order becomes bad and unless the impugned order is interfered with and the petitioner is provided with an opportunity of calling for the loan document and leading evidence in the said regard through the witnesses already examined, the petitioner will be seriously prejudiced and there may not be any effective trial of the Election dispute involved herein. 3. To his opposition, Sri. S.N.Das, learned counsel for the contesting opposite party bringing the stage of the proceeding at the relevant moment contended that not only the petitioner lacked in making such endeavours through the witnesses already examined but looking to the situation that the Election proceeding is pending at argument stage providing such opportunity at this stage of the matter will be affecting the contesting opposite party and the attempt of the petitioner appears to be an attempt to linger the disposal of the Election dispute. 4. 4. Considering the rival contentions of the parties and looking to the nature of the dispute involved herein, further for already raising the allegations involving Lokanath Pattanaik with regard to have some loan outstanding at the time of Election involved herein, this Court observes, the petitioner's case would be heavily dependent on such materials being placed. It is observed that though the petitioner failed in his attempt or endeavour in bringing such document and bringing evidence involving such document at appropriate stage, taking into consideration that since the Election dispute is still pending final adjudication, difficulty, if any, to be faced by the contesting opposite party can be mitigated by way of cost in the interest of justice and to have a fair contest, petitioner's attempt should have been viewed seriously. 5. Law has been fairly well settled that it is ultimately the duty of the court to see effective adjudication of the proceeding and no such application should be rejected on account of mere technicalities. Courts have also gone to the extent observing that in the event there is any prejudice to any of the parties for unnecessary dragging of the proceeding, their difficulty can be mitigated by way of cost. 6. In the process, for the observation made herein and as this Court finds, depriving the petitioner from bringing the document desired for and leading evidence involving such document will in fact land in no effective adjudication of the Election dispute. In the circumstance, this Court while observing that there is no proper consideration of the issue involved by the trial court involving the Election Petition No.5/2017 sets aside the order at Annexure-1. This Court while allowing the application at the instance of the present petitioner for summoning the Orami Service Cooperative Society for production of loan document involving Lokanath Pattanaik permits the petitioner to lead evidence involving such document with liberty to the contesting opposite party for having his/their objection and/or cross-examination involving such document, if any. Considering the suffering of the contesting opposite party for the dragging of the litigation for his fault of him, the order passed herein will be however subject to imposition of cost of Rs. 3000/-(rupees three thousand), which will be paid by the petitioner to the contesting opposite party in the court below. Considering the suffering of the contesting opposite party for the dragging of the litigation for his fault of him, the order passed herein will be however subject to imposition of cost of Rs. 3000/-(rupees three thousand), which will be paid by the petitioner to the contesting opposite party in the court below. The attempt of summoning the document and reexamination of the witnesses already examined at the instance of the petitioner will be concluded within a period of two months and the trial involving Election Petition No.5/2017 shall also be concluded within a period of two months thereafter. 7. The writ petition succeeds but however with the cost as indicated herein above.