JUDGMENT :

A.K. Rath, J.

This petition challenges the order dated 16.4.2016 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Puri in C.S. No.495 of 2012. By the said order, learned trial court rejected the applications of the plaintiff to examine him and to prove the documents after closure of evidence.

2. Since the petition is to be disposed of on a short point, the facts need not be stated in detail. Suffice it to say that Kunimani Mohapatra, mother of the plaintiff, instituted C.S. No.495 of 2012 in the court of the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Puri for declaration of right, title and interest, cancellation of sale deed and permanent injunction impleading opposite parties as defendants. During pendency of the suit, she died, where after, the petitioner was substituted. After closure of evidence from both the sides, on 2.2.2015 the plaintiff filed two applications seeking leave of the court to file documents and to mark the same as exhibits. The defendants filed objections to the same. By order dated 12.02.2015, learned trial court rejected the applications. Thereafter, he filed CMP No.227 of 2015 before this Court. The same was listed on 7.12.2015 before a Bench of this Court. In course of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner sought liberty of the Court to raise the said point at the appellate stage and to withdraw the petition. Accordingly, the petition was withdrawn. While the matter stood thus, on 21.3.2016 the plaintiff filed two applications along with certain documents seeking leave of the Court to accept the same and lead evidence to prove those documents. The defendants filed objection to the same. Learned trial court assigned the following reasons and rejected the petition.

“….Taking into account their submissions it is noticed that by virtue of order Dtd.12.02.15 a detailed analysis has been made with regard to all the documents filed by the substituted plaintiff. Since a detailed order has been passed after due reasoning, for rejection of the petition seeking permission of the court to mark and to exhibit the same, I do not find any further plausible reason to allow the present petition as a previous petition has already been rejected on merit by this very court. Accordingly, both the petitions dtd.21.3.16 stands rejected being devoid of any merit. Accordingly, the petitions filed by the substituted plaintiff to examine himself and to lead evidence stands rejected. Similarly the petition seeking leave of the Court to file documents as per list on 21.03.16 also stands rejected as it will certainly cause more irreparable loss to the defendant who will not be in a position to cross examine the original plaintiff with respect to those documents, as she is already dead. Moreover, these documents have been filed at the stage of argument i.e. at the fag end of the trial just to patch up the lacunae…”

3. Heard Mr.Ashok Parija, learned Senior Advocate along with Mr.V. Mohapatra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Ashok Mohanty, learned Senior Advocate along with Miss. L. Pradhan, learned counsel for the opposite parties.

4. Mr. Parija, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner, submitted that the court, at any stage of the suit, may recall any witness and may put the questions to him. The court may, in exercise of its inherent power under Section 151 CPC, permit the production of such evidence if it is relevant and necessary in the interest of justice. If a document is filed in late and the party assigns the reasons for its non-production, the court has to be satisfied that the explanation offered by the party is satisfactory and the documents are relevant. He submitted that the learned trial court has rejected the petition on the ground that the earlier application of the plaintiff was rejected. Rejection of earlier application, per se, is not a ground to consider the application on merit. He further submitted that some of the documents are public documents and needs no formal proof. He relied on t