Back
1981 Supreme(Ori) 171
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA
B.N. Misra, J.
KANHU CHARAN MOHANTY - APPELLANT
Versus
BISHNU CHARAN MOHANTY AND OTHERS - RESPONDENT
Civil Revision No. 279 of 1980
Decided On : 18-09-1981
R. Ch. Mohanty and S.M. Patnaik, for the Appellant; G.C. Patnaik, N.P. Parija, S.R. Patnaik, K.C. Bhuyan, G.K. Parida, B.B. Nanda and Khirod Kumar Samantray, for the Respondent
The court emphasized that the Plaintiff had been seriously prejudiced by the non-admission of the documents, and held that the learned Munsif had acted with material irregularity in not admitting and marking the documents as exhibits.
Headnote:
Revision - Admission of Documents - The court allowed the revision and set aside the order of the learned Munsif, directing the admission and marking as regular exhibits of the 'Dakhalnama' (marked 'Y' series), the 'Salami' receipt (marked 'Z'), the rent receipt (marked 'Z/1'), and the Khatian.
Fact of the Case:
The Plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction against the Defendants and also filed a petition for temporary injunction. The Plaintiff sought to admit and mark certain documents as exhibits during the trial, but the documents had not been stamped. The court impounded the documents, and after the Plaintiff paid the stamp duty and penalty, the court refused to admit and mark the documents as exhibits. The Plaintiff filed a revision against this order.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Plaintiff had been seriously prejudiced by the non-admission of the documents, as the case of the Plaintiff rested on these documents. The court held that the learned Munsif had acted with material irregularity in not admitting and marking the documents as exhibits.
Issues: The main issue was the refusal of the court to admit and mark certain documents as exhibits due to lack of stamp duty, despite the Plaintiff's payment of the duty and penalty.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the Plaintiff had not introduced the documents at a late stage, as they had been filed and considered by the court in the injunction matter. The court also emphasized that the opposite parties had not been prejudiced by the lack of notice of these documents, and therefore, the documents should have been admitted and marked as regular exhibits after the stamp duty and penalty were paid.
Final Decision: The revision was allowed, and the order of the learned Munsif was set aside. The court directed the admission and marking as regular exhibits of the 'Dakhalnama' (marked 'Y' series), the 'Salami' receipt (marked 'Z'), the rent receipt (marked 'Z/1'), and the Khatian. The court also instructed the learned Munsif to give the opposite parties an adequate opportunity to recall and further cross-examine the witnesses of the Plaintiff with reference to the admitted documents only, and to dispose of the old suit as soon as possible.
JUDGMENT :
B.N. Misra, J. - This revision is directed against the order dated 7-4-1980 passed by the learned Munsif, Kendrapara in Title Suit No. 194 of 1976 refusing to admit and mark as exhibits a 'Dakhalnama' with certain signatures thereon (marked 'Y' series), a 'Salami receipt (marked 'Z') and a rent receipt (marked 'Z/1').
2. Petitioner is the Plaintiff in the suit. Opposite parties 1 to 22 are Defendants 1 to 22 in the Court below and opposite parties 23 to 30 are the proforma Defendants. The Petitioner filed Title Suit No. 194 of 1976 on 6-12-1976 praying for permanent injunction against the Defendants. On the same day the Petitioner also filed a petition for temporary injunction under Order 39, Rule 1, CPC and the said petition was registered as Misc. Case No. 284 of 1976. The Petitioner had filed in Court the 'Salami' receipt and rent receipt on 11-4-1977 and the 'Dakhalnama' on 24-6-1977 and these were considered by the learned Munsif in the hearing of injunction matter. Thereafter on 17-1-1978 the Petitioner took return of the said documents and refilled the same on 22-1-1980. During the trial of the suit the Petitioner (Plaintiff) examined himself as P.W. 7 and the aforesaid documents were sought to be proved by him on 27-2-1980. However it was found that the documents had not been stamped and as such the 'Dakhalnama', the 'Salami' receipt and the rent receipt were marked as 'Y' series. 'Z' and 'Z/1' respectively. The Court impounded the said documents on 10-3-1980 and the Petitioner paid the stamp duty and penalty on 13-3-1980. By that date evidence had been closed. On 26-3-1980, the Petitioner filed a petition praying for admitting the aforesaid documents and marking them as regular exhibits along with one Khatian. The opposite parties filed a counter and objected to the admission and marking of the aforesaid documents as exhibits. After hearing both sides, the learned Munsif hold that the Khatian could be admitted and marked as an exhibit since it was a public document, but he refused to admit and mark as exhibits the 'Dakhalnama, the 'Salami' receipt and the rent receipt. After the aforesaid three documents had been impounded and the requisite duty and penalty had been paid by the Petitioner, there could possibly have been no objection in admitting them into evidence and marking them as regular exhibits. One of the grounds stated by the learned Munsif in support of his order appears to be that the said documents were sought to be admitted into evidence at a very late stage. This ground has however not been held valid by the learned Munsif The respect of the Khatian which according to him could be admitted and marked as an exhibit. As already noted it is not that the Petitioner is seeking to introduce these documents at a late stage. These documents had been filed and considered by the Court in the injunction matter. Therefore the opposite parties cannot be said to have been prejudiced in any way on account of lack of notice of these documents. Since the Court imploded these documents and realised the stamp duty and penalty from the Petitioner, it should have admitted the documents also and marked them as regular exhibits. On careful consideration, I agree with the submission made by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner that he has been seriously prejudiced on account of non-admission of his 'Dakhalnama', the 'Salami' receipt and the rent receipt on which the case of the Petitioner rests. The learned Munsif acted with material irregularity in the exercise of his jurisdiction in not admitting and marking as exhibits the 'Dakhalnama', the 'Salami' receipt and the rent receipt.
3. Accordingly this revision is allowed. The order of the learned Munsif dated 7-4-1980 is set aside. The learned Munsif shall admit and mark as regular exhibits the 'Dakhalnama' (marked 'Y' series), the 'Salami' receipt (marked 'Z') and the rent receipt (marked 'Z/1') along with the Khatian already ordered by him to be admitted and exhibite
