Reason: Authentication

Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack

Date: 01-Sep-2025 17:58:31

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

C.M.P. No.246 of 2025

(In the matter of an application under Article 227 of the Constitution of

India)

M/s.Adarsh Palace Pvt. Ltd., Bisra …. Petitioners

Road, Rourkela-1, Dist.- Sundargarh and another

-versus-

Somnath Dwibedi (since dead) …. Opposite Parties

through LRs and others

Advocate(s) appeared in this case:-

For Petitioners : Mr. B. Sahoo, Advocate

For Opposite Parties : Mr. S. Sahu, Advocate

For O.Ps. No.1(a) to 1(h)

CORAM: JUSTICE B.P. ROUTRAY

JUDGMENT

21^st August 2025 B.P. Routray, J.

1. Heard Mr. B. Sahoo, learned Advocate for the Petitioners and

Mr. S. Sahu, learned Advocate for the Opposite Parties 1(a) to 1(h).

2. Present C.M.P. is directed against the impugned order dated 11.12.2024 of the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Rourkela passed in C.S. No.47 of 2008, wherein the prayer of Defendants 1 to 3 to adduce

Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 01-Sep-2025 17:58:31 the certified copy of the previous statement of P.W.1 as exhibit has been refused.

It needs to be mentioned here that though in the prayer portion of the C.M.P., the orders dated 11.12.2024 and 20.01.2025 are being challenged, but Mr. B. Sahoo, learned counsel for the Petitioner confines his challenge to order dated 11.12.2024 only.

3. Opposite Party being the Plaintiff filed the suit praying for a decree for setting aside Sale Deed No.946 of 2007 in respect of the suit property. In course of hearing of the suit, the Defendants have entered appearance, filed their WS and both parties adduced their respective evidences. After closure of evidence from both sides, the matter was posted for argument and upon completion of argument, it was posted for judgment. At this stage, Defendants 1 to 3 sought to adduce the certified copy of deposition of P.W.1 {Plaintiff 1(b)} given in another pending suit, i.e. C.S. No.60 of 2005. The learned trial court refused such prayer of the Defendants on the ground that there was no pleading of the parties in respect of pendency of the said suit and no such statement made in deposition of P.W.1 in the earlier suit was confronted to P.W.1 in the present suit, and therefore, such prayer of Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 01-Sep-2025 17:58:31 the Defendants to admit the earlier deposition of P.W.1 in evidence is not entertained.

4. It is submitted by Mr. B. Sahoo, learned counsel, on behalf of the Petitioner that, confrontation in respect of the previous statement to make the same admitted into evidence is not at all required particularly when same P.W.1 has given his deposition in the present suit as well as in the previous suit.

5. Conversely, Mr. S. Sahu, learned counsel submits for the Plaintiff that, the prayer to adduce certain documents after the argument is over and before pronouncement the judgment is not permissible if unsupported by any explanation for delay. According to him, any such documentary evidence to be adduced by the parties should be before the issues are settled and for such delay in adducing the same, it should be supported by reasons of delay with affidavit. It is further submitted that, the purpose of adducing such previous deposition of P.W.1 with regard to his admission about part partition has already been admitted by P.W.1 in his cross-examination in the present suit. Therefore, the purpose of adducing documentary evidence by the Defendants is not worthy for consideration.

Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 01-Sep-2025 17:58:31

6. Admittedly the pendency of the earlier suit in C.S. No.60 of 2005 before the same court is not disputed where Plaintiff 1(b) has adduced his evidence as P.W.1. It is true that the present Defendnats 1 to 3 are not the parties in C.S. No.60 of 2005. That suit is within the members of the family of the vender of Defendants 1 to 3. The background of the case is that, the