The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CMP No.137 of 2025 Sarat Kumar Nayak …. Petitioner Mr. Bikram Rath, Advocate -Versus- Hina Sahoo & others …. Opposite Parties None
Legal Reasoning
CORAM: MR. JUSTICE R.K. PATTANAIK
Decision
ORDER 21.04.2025 Order No. 01. 1. 2. Heard Mr. Rath, learned counsel for the petitioner. No notices are issued to the opposite parties as the matter is disposed of at the stage of admission. 3. Instant petition is filed by the petitioner challenging the impugned order dated 15th January, 2025 passed in connection with I.A. No.13 of 2024 arising out of C.S.(I) No.20 of 2024 by learned Civil Judge, (S.D.), Athgarh under Annexure-4, whereby, an application under Order 16 Rule 1 CPC filed in the I.A. seeking production of the entire case record in Mutation Case No.3387 of 2016 was declined. 4. Mr. Rath, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the case land was purchased by the petitioner in the year, 2013 and mutated thereafter in 2014. The further submission is that the land in question is alleged to have been purchased by the predecessor-in- interest of the opposite parties but was mutated in 2016. The Page 1 of 4 contention is that in the said mutation proceeding, no notice was received by the petitioner. In fact, the allegation is in specific, which is to the effect that in Mutation Case No.3387 of 2016, at the instance of the opposite parties, mutation was allowed behind the back of the petitioner and in order to ascertain whether any such signature purportedly of him appearing thereon, such record of the proceeding was sought to be called for, however, the same was disallowed on the grounds mentioned in the impugned order as at Annexure-4. The submission of Mr. Rath, learned counsel is that the production of the original record in the mutation proceeding is just and necessary in order to ascertain any such notice to the petitioner have been issued in Mutation Case No.3387 of 2016, since the alleged purchase by the predecessor of the opposite parties is claimed to be prior to the purchase of the petitioner though having been mutated in 2016. 5. 6. Perused the impugned order as at Annexure-4. Upon a reading of the impugned order, the Court finds that the learned Court below refused to entertain any such request seeking production of the case record in Mutation Case No.3387 of 2016 in terms of Order 16 Rule 1 C.P.C. on the grounds, such as, the same is unnecessary and hence, not required and that apart, the petitioner could able to collect the certified copy of the relevant documents besides for the fact that, the State is not a party to the suit. The further conclusion of learned Court below is that evidence cannot be received in a miscellaneous proceeding since the application under Order 16 Rule 1 C.P.C. was filed in I.A. No. 13 of 2024 seeking injunction in respect of the suit schedule property. Mr. Rath, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that unless Page 2 of 4 the original record of the mutation proceeding was produced and confronted to the opposite parties and also to ascertain if at all any such notice was ever issued and served on the petitioner in juxtaposition to the fact that the purchase by the predecessor of the opposite parties claimed to have purchase the case land prior to that of the petitioner, the application under Order 16 Rule 1 C.P.C. ought to have been allowed in the interest of justice. 7. As far as seeking a request for production of the case record is concerned, according to the Court, it can still be entertained and directed in a miscellaneous proceeding and there is no bar as such. In fact, as the I.A. is filed for injunction in terms of Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 C.P.C., the Court below before considering any such request and relief sought for by the petitioner, is required to be satisfied regarding the rights of the parties, especially when, the petitioner, who claims that there has been manipulation or fraud perpetrated in the issuance of notice vis-(cid:224)-vis mutation proceeding of the file of the learned Tahasildar, Athgarh and also to ascertain the fact as to if any such notice was ever issued and received by the petitioner and when there is a dispute over title in respect of the case land having been purchased by the parties. To consider the interim relief of injunction in the I.A., the Court is of the view that learned Court below should however be directed cause production of the mutation case record exercising jurisdiction as per Order 16 Rule 1 C.P.C. The further conclusion of the Court is that the petitioner would be at liberty to collect the certified copy of the relevant documents of the mutation proceeding but it would not serve the purpose, since fraud is alleged with regard to issuance of notice in Mutation Case No.3387 of 2016. Rather worthy purpose would be served if the case record of the proceeding is produced before Page 3 of 4 learned Court below for a decision in the I.A. filed under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 C.P.C., hence, the conclusion reached at by the learned Court below is, therefore, not sustainable in law, furthermore when, there is no any interdiction under law seeking records of a proceeding like present one and therefore, the impugned order i.e. Annexure-4 is liable to be interfered with and set aside with a consequential direction issued in that regard. 8. 9. Accordingly, it is ordered. In the result, the I.A. stands allowed. As a necessary corollary, the impugned order dated 15th January, 2025 passed in connection with I.A. No.13 of 2024 arising out of the suit in C.S.(I) No.20 of 2024 by learned Civil Judge, (S.D.), Athgarh is hereby set aside with a direction to call for the original record in Mutation Case No.3387 of 2016 for a decision in I.A. No. 13 of 2024 as per and in accordance with law. 10. Urgent certified copy of this order be issued as per rules. (R.K. Pattanaik) Judge Balaram Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BALARAM BEHERA Reason: Authentication Location: OHC, CUTTACK Date: 22-Apr-2025 13:09:46 Page 4 of 4