The High Court
Case Details
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SASANKA SEKHAR SATAPATHY Designation: AR-cum-Senior Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA CUTTACK Date: 31-Aug-2024 16:55:15 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CMP No.443 of 2024 Kamalini Nayak and others Petitioners Mr.Malaya Kumar Mishra, Advocate .... -versus- The Collector, Kandhamal and others …. Opp. Parties
Legal Reasoning
Mr. Swayambhu Mishra, Additional Standing Counsel (For Opposite Party Nos.1 to 3) CORAM:
Decision
MR. JUSTICE K.R. MOHAPATRA ORDER 30.08.2024 Order No. 2. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode. 1. 2. Order dated 26th February, 2024 (Annexure-5) passed in CS No.76 of 2023 is under challenge in this CMP, whereby learned Senior Civil Judge, G. Udayagiri rejected an application filed by the Plaintiffs/Petitioners under Order XI Rule 16 CPC to direct Defendant No.6 to produce certain documents in his possession to enable the Petitioners to inspect the same to prepare themselves for trial of the suit. 3. Mr. Mishra, learned counsel for the Petitioners submits that the suit has been filed by the Plaintiffs/Petitioners for declaration of their right, title and interest over the suit property by adverse possession. It is the case of the Plaintiffs that Santosh Kumar Patra-Defendant No.6 had encroached upon a portion of the land in possession of the Plaintiffs. Hence, a prayer for recovery of possession has also been made in the suit. Before Page 1 of 4 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SASANKA SEKHAR SATAPATHY Designation: AR-cum-Senior Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA CUTTACK Date: 31-Aug-2024 16:55:15 // 2 // commencement of trial, an application under Order XI Rule 16 CPC was filed by the Plaintiffs to direct Defendant No.6 to produce certain documents in his possession. It is his submission that Defendant No.6 claimed that he purchased the suit plot No.2627. Defendant No.6 has also relied upon certain other documents in support of his case. Plaintiffs submitted that said documents may be produced in the Court so that they can inspect those before they go for trial of the suit. Learned trial Court rejected petition on a flimsy ground that earlier an application under Order XI Rule 1 CPC was rejected on the selfsame ground and the Plaintiffs have to prove their case. They need not depend upon Defendants to establish their case. It is his submission that Plaintiffs do not rely upon those documents to establish their case, but they require the same to be inspected so that they can go prepared for trial of the suit. This material aspect was not considered by learned trial Court while adjudicating the matter. Hence, this CMP has been filed challenging the order impugned herein. 4. Mr. Mishra, learned ASC vehemently objects to the same. It is his submission that earlier on the selfsame ground, application under Order XI Rule 1 CPC was dismissed vide order dated 20th January, 2024, which remained un-challenged. In order to get rid of the same, Plaintiffs moved the present application. Plaintiffs are not entitled to probe into case of the Defendants and to know what evidence should be led by the Defendants by filing an application either under Order XI Rule 1 CPC or Order XI Rule 16 CPC. Page 2 of 4 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SASANKA SEKHAR SATAPATHY Designation: AR-cum-Senior Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA CUTTACK Date: 31-Aug-2024 16:55:15 // 3 // 4.1 In support of his case, Mr. Mishra, learned ASC placed reliance on a decision in the case of Smt. Santilata Dei Vs. Sumitra Mahakuda, reported in (2013) 115 CLT 661, wherein, THIS Court held as under :- To deal with Question Nos.(i) and (ii), it is “7. necessary to know what is contemplated under Order 11, Rule 1, CPC. Under Order 11, Rule 1, C.P.C., every party to a suit is entitled to know the nature of its opponent’s case, so that it may know beforehand what case it has to meet at the time of hearing. But he is not entitled to know the facts which constitute exclusively the evidence of his opponent’s case, the reasons being that it would enable an unscrupulous party to tamper with his opponents witnesses, and to manufacture evidence in contradiction, and to shape his case as to defeat justice. (See Saunders vs. Jones (1877) 7 C.D. 435, Marriot vs. Chamberlain (1886) 17 Q.B.D. 154, and Benbow v. Low (1880) 16 C.D. 93, 95; Re Strachan [1895] 1 Ch. 439, 445, 447 and 448; Knapp v. Harvey (1911) 2 K.B. 726, 730).” He, therefore, submits that Plaintiffs are not entitled to know the facts which constitute exclusively the evidence of the opponent’s case; the reason being that it would enable an unscrupulous party to tamper with his opponent’s witness and to manufacture evidence in contradiction and to shape his case as to defeat justice. He, therefore, submits that learned trial Court has committed no error in dismissing the application under Order XI Rule 16 CPC. 5. Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, this Court finds that earlier an application under Order XI Rule 1 CPC filed by the Plaintiffs putting some interrogatories to Defendant No.6 was rejected, vide order dated 20th January, 2024(Annexure-4), which remained un-assailed. Page 3 of 4 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SASANKA SEKHAR SATAPATHY Designation: AR-cum-Senior Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA CUTTACK Date: 31-Aug-2024 16:55:15 // 4 // Subsequently, the present application under Order XI Rule 16 was moved. Learned trial Court while disposing of the application, categorically held that the suit has been filed for declaration of right, title and interest of the Plaintiffs through adverse possession over the suit property. Admittedly, the property stands recorded in the name of the Government of Odisha. It is also observed that the Plaintiffs cannot derive any strength from the weakness in the Defendants’ case so also the Plaintiffs cannot force the Defendants to produce any document so as to prove their case. The Plaintiffs would succeed or fail on the strength of their own case. 5.1 On perusal of the plaint, this Court finds that the Plaintiffs do not rely upon any of the documents sought to be produced by the Defendants in exercise of power under Order XI Rule 16 CPC. Law has been well-discussed in the case of Smt. Santilata Dei (supra) that the Plaintiffs are not entitled to know the fact which constitutes exclusively the evidence of the Defendants. In such view of the matter, I find no infirmity in the impugned order. 6. Accordingly, the CMP being devoid of any merit stands dismissed. s.s.satapathy (K.R. Mohapatra) Judge Page 4 of 4