9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (1) TMI 70X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... No ground whatsoever has been taken in the petition under Order XVI Rule 1 C.P.C. for summoning the aforesaid witnesses. It further appears that the Collector, Central Excise Custom, Bhubaneswar-1 is Defendant No.6 is to the suit and is contesting the suit by engaging its counsel. Hence, the Plaintiffs-Petitioners would be at liberty to cross-examine the witnesses to be produced on behalf of the Defendant No.6 during course of trial to establish their claim - there are no infirmity in the impugned order. Petition dismissed. - W.P.(C) No. 1739 of 2012 - - - Dated:- 1-11-2021 - JUSTICE K.R. MOHAPATRA Petitioners Mr. Manoj Kumar Mishra, Senior Advocate along with Mr. S. Das, Advocate Opp. Parties Mr. Soumya Mishra, Advocate (For Opposite Party No.1) ORDER 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode. 2. Although this matter is listed For Orders to consider I.A. No. 13440 of 2021 for extension of order of stay, but on the consent of learned counsel for the parties, this matter is taken up for final disposal. 3. The Petitioners in this writ petition seek to assail the order dated 24th December, 2011 (Annexure-7) passed by learned Civil Jud ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s: 3. Mr. S. Kr. Mohanty, the learned counsel for the plaintiff-opposite party No. 1, submitted that the Parliament by incorporating sub-rule (3) to Rule 1 of Order 16, C.P.C. clearly intended that the parties should take steps for summoning the witnesses much earlier to the date of hearing so that both the parties are able to know the nature of evidence intended to be adduced by the other party. In case permission is given at the last moment to examine witnesses, there is every chance of the parties playing hide and seek resulting in the real truth being suppressed. There is strong force in the submission of Mr. Mohanty. When list of witnesses is filed by one party the other party should get a chance to know the nature of evidence which would be adduced. There may not be a fair trial in absence of such opportunity. That, however, does pot mean that a party submitting the list of witnesses at a belated stage should be prohibited from adducing any evidence. Trial court ought to have considered that procedure laid down in the Code of Civil Procedure is a handmaid of justice. The same is not to be utilised to obstruct the free flow of justice and proper adjudication. Formali ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... documents but such relaxation is subject to the provisions of Sub-Rule (3) of Rule 1, implying thereby that such party invoking Rule 1A is required to establish sufficient cause as enshrined under Sub-Rule (3) of Rule 1 of Order 16 CPC. 6. Mr. Mishra, learned counsel for the Opposite Party No.1 refuting the submission made by Mr. Mishra, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the Petitioners contended that since the order sought to be produced has been passed in a proceeding undertaken by the Collector, Central Excise Custom, Bhubaneswar-Defendant No.6, the Plaintiffs- Petitioners could have obtained the certified copy of the said order as well as the entire order sheet and produced the same. In that event, learned trial court would have been in a position to ascertain as to whether those documents are at all necessary for determining the real question in controversy between the parties. He further submits that the application ought to have been a petition under Order XVI Rule 6 read with Order XI Rule 14 C.P.C., in which event the person, if summoned, would only produce the documents for examination of the court if those documents are relevant for proper adjudication of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mmon others through court. Learned trial court allowed the petition with regard to production of Kashinath Panda, Bhaskar Mishra and Binayak Panda by the Plaintiffs to be examined on their behalf. Learned court also allowed the prayer in directing to summon the Sub-Registrar, Aska, Ganjam for production of the Registered Document No.14/1975, but rejected the prayer in respect of summoning the other witnesses more fully described in the list appended to petition under Order XVI Rule 1 C.P.C. As recorded earlier in course of hearing, Mr. Mishra, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the Petitioners confined his prayer only to summon Sl. No.4 of the list, namely, the Collector, Central Excise Custom, Bhubaneswar-1 to produce the order, as aforesaid and to depose in Court. 9. The order sought to be produced has been passed in a proceeding before the Collector, Central Excise Custom, Bhubaneswar-1. Thus, there was no difficulty on a part of the Plaintiffs-Petitioners to produce the certified copy of the order as well as the entire order sheet of the said proceeding for appraisal of learned trial Court. In that event learned trial Court would have been in a position to examine the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
