Location: OHC, Cuttack

Date: 12-Jan-2026 15:37:50

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

CMP No.1371 of 2025

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

India)

Smt. Anjali Mishra …. Petitioner

-versus-

Biswananth Parichha … Opposite Party

Advocate(s) appeared in this case:-

For Petitioner : Mr. S. Rath, Advocate For Opp. Party : Mr. S. Das, Advocate

CORAM: JUSTICE B.P. ROUTRAY

JUDGMENT

6^th January, 2026

B.P. Routray, J.

1. Heard Mr. S. Rath, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Mr. S.

Das, learned counsel for the opposite party.

2. Present CMP is directed assailing order dated 19^th August, 2025 of learned Senior Civil Judge, Paralakhemundi passed in CS No.37 of 2015, wherein the prayer of the defendant to adduce the voter list

as one of the exhibits has been rejected.

Location: OHC, Cuttack Date: 12-Jan-2026 15:37:50

3. The suit has been filed by present opposite party with the prayer for a declaration in respect of the Willnama as illegal, void and in- operative. In course of trial the parties have adduced their evidence and at such stage, when P.W.2 an alleged attesting witness to the Willnama was examined by the plaintiff, she was sought to be recalled by the defendant for further cross-examination. The prayer was allowed by the trial court and said P.W.2 was produced in the witness box. While cross-examining said P.W.2, the defendant with a view to dispute her identity with that of the attesting witness described in the Willnama, wanted to exhibit the voter list of the concerned area with confrontation to said witness. But the same has been rejected by learned trial court with the opinion that it is not relevant in the facts and circumstance of the suit.

4. In view of the facts narrated above, the question that comes for determination is whether exhibition of such document during the evidences of the witnesses would be considered to be accepted on record or not. The questioned document sought to be exhibited is admittedly the voter list of the concerned area where P.W.2 is residing. Admittedly the defendant objects citing of P.W.2 as the attesting witness to the Willnama under dispute.

Location: OHC, Cuttack Date: 12-Jan-2026 15:37:50

5. Undoubtedly the prayer for recall of P.W.2 for her further cross- examination by the defendant has been allowed and said P.W.2 then came to the witness box to answer the questions of the defendant. At this stage it is to be reminded here that production of a document as exhibit in the court is not same as the proof of contents thereof. In this regard, it is held in State of Bihar v. Radha Krishna Singh, (1983) 3 SCC 118, that;-

“40. … Admissibility of a document is one thing and its probative value quite another—these two aspects cannot be combined. A document may be admissible and yet may not carry any conviction and weight or its probative value may be nil. …

Xxx .. xxx ..

145. (4) The probative value of documents which, however ancient they may be, do not disclose sources of their information or have not achieved sufficient notoriety is precious little.”

Further in Madan Mohan Singh v. Rajni Kant, (2010) 9 SCC 209, it has been held that;-

“18. … a document may be admissible, but as to whether the entry contained therein has any probative value may still be required to be examined in the facts and circumstances of a particular case.”

(See also H. Siddiqui v. A. Ramalingam [(2011) 4 SCC 240 : (2011) 2 SCC (Civ) 209 : AIR 2011 SC 1492], Location: OHC, Cuttack Date: 12-Jan-2026 15:37:50 Laxmibai v. Bhagwantbuva [(2013) 4 SCC 97 : JT (2013) 2 SC

362] .)

6. In the case at hand the document sought to be exhibited is the voter list and thus is a public document. Whether the public document is containing true and correct facts relevant for a given case is a matter to be determined by the court through proper evidence. It is not that the document which has been marked in exhibit would automatically establish the contents thereof as true. The Aadhaar card or voter list as shown by P.W.2 in suppo