IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK C.M.P. No.662 of 2024 (An application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India)

---------------

Muralidhar Beura ...… Petitioner -Versus-

Reena Beura @ Lenka & Anr. ..…. Opp. Parties Advocate(s) appeared in this case:-

_______________________________________________________

For Petitioner : Mr. B.B. Mishra, Advocate For Opp. Parties : Mr. A.C. Mohapatra, Advocate [For O.P. No.1]

___________________________________________

CORAM:

JUSTICE SASHIKANTA MISHRA

JUDGMENT

19^th December, 2025 SASHIKANTA MISHRA, J.

The Petitioner is Defendant No.1 in C.S.(1)

No.209 of 2007 pending in the Court of learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division), 1st Court, Cuttack filed by the present Opposite Party No.1-Plaintiff. Opposite Party No.2 is Defendant No.2 in the said suit.

2. In the present application filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner challenges order dated 06.03.2024 passed by the said Court in allowing an application filed by the plaintiff to mark certain documents as exhibits after closure of evidence in the case.

3. The facts, necessary only to decide the present application are that the plaintiff has filed the suit for declaration. The defendants are contesting the suit by filing separate written statements. In course of hearing, the plaintiff examined witnesses and several documents were marked exhibits from her side. Defendant No.1 also examined witnesses on his behalf and proved certain documents, which were marked exhibits from his side. At this stage, the plaintiff filed a petition on 22.09.2023 with prayer to accept ten documents as mentioned in the schedule to the petition and to mark them as exhibits from her side. It is stated that the documents are public documents being original and certified copies and are relevant and have a bearing on the controversy between the parties. The defendants filed objections stating that such petition cannot be allowed at a belated stage, particularly when the plaintiff has not explained as to why the documents were not filed earlier. By the order impugned, the Court below, after going through the documents held that the same appeared to be vital, relevant and would assist the Court in coming to a just decision and to decide the real issue in controversy. Further, the defendants shall also be given opportunity to rebut or question the credibility of the documents. The petition was therefore, allowed and the documents in question were directed to be marked as exhibits.

4. Heard Mr. B.B. Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the Defendant-Petitioner and Mr. A.C. Mohapatra, learned counsel appearing for the Plaintiff-

Opposite Party No.1.

5. Mr. Mishra would argue that there is no provision in the Code of Civil Procedure to accept documents filed after closure of evidence. Moreover, the documents sought to be exhibited were neither pleaded nor mentioned in the list of documents relied upon in the plaint. It is, therefore, evident that the plaintiff seeks to fill up the lacuna in her case, which is not permissible. The plaintiff has also not given adequate explanation for not producing the documents earlier. In support of his contention, Mr. Mishra has relied upon the judgments of this Court passed in Pitani Sai Vs. Pitani Nagmani¹ and Sarat Chandra Mohapatra Vs. Narsingha Mohapatra²

6. Per contra, Mr. Mohapatra would submit that the Court has ample power to accept documents at a later stage and admit them into evidence if the same are considered necessary to decide the controversy between the parties. Moreover, the documents sought to be exhibited are all public documents, against which the defendants have the opportunity to adduce rebuttal evidence.

7. The Code of Civil Procedure lays down the stage and procedure for producing documents. Order XIII Rule 1, being relevant is reproduced below:-

“1.Original documents to be produced at or before the settlement of issues- (1) The parties or their pleader shall produce on or before the settlement of is