The High Court
Case Details
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: AJAYA KUMAR RANA Designation: P.A. Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 15-Jul-2025 11:33:03 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK RSA No. 216 of 2024 [In the matter of an appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.] --------------- Dulari @ Dulkheren Xess ...… Appellant -Versus- Pramila Xess and another ….. Respondents Advocate(s) appeared in this case :- ________________________________________________________ For Appellants : M/s. Tushar Kumar Mishra, P. Bastia, S.K. Dash, R. Rana, K.S. Sahu & P.K. Sahoo, Advocates For Respondents : None __________________________________________________________ CORAM JUSTICE SASHIKANTA MISHRA JUDGMENT 08th July, 2025 SASHIKANTA MISHRA, J.
Facts
This is a plaintiff’s appeal against a confirming judgment. The suit filed by him for an order directing compensation of Rs.55,000/- by the defendants was dismissed and was confirmed by the First Appellate Court. Page 1 of 7 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: AJAYA KUMAR RANA Designation: P.A. Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 15-Jul-2025 11:33:03 2. The case of the plaintiff, briefly stated, is that she and the defendants are residents of village Birkera in the district of Sundargarh. In course of demarcation of certain plots of the plaintiff on 13.04.2011, the defendants came to the spot and assaulted her and threatened her of dire consequences as a result of which, she sustained injuries on her body and also become naked in the public. She lodged an FIR before the Bisra Police Station, pursuant to which a police case was registered under Sections 341/323/354/506/34 of Indian Penal Code against the defendants. It is further alleged that the defendants abused her in obscene language by saying ‘randi‟ and „bedha‟ to the hearing of the public. The plaintiff claims that because of such assault and use of abusive words by the defendants, she not only sustained bodily injury resulting in pain but also was humiliated and therefore, suffered mental agony. Basically on such facts, the plaintiff filed the suit claiming Rs.55,000/- as damages from the defendants under different heads. Page 2 of 7 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: AJAYA KUMAR RANA Designation: P.A. Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 15-Jul-2025 11:33:03 3. The defendants contested the suit by filing joint written statement denying the plaint averments and also questioning the maintainability of the suit. They specifically denied the incident of assault and use of abusive language as stated in the plaint. It was stated that because of family dispute between defendant No.2 and the husband of the plaintiff regarding partition of their ancestral property, the suit was filed. 4. Basing on the pleadings of the parties, the trial Court framed the following issued for determination. “(i) Whether the suit is maintainable? (ii) Whether the plaintiff has cause of action to file the suit? (iii) Whether the suit is barred by law of Limitation? (iv) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to get Rs.55,000/- from the defendants? (v) What other relief/reliefs the plaintiff entitled to?” is 5. Issue No.(iv) being the pivotal issue was taken for consideration at the outset by the trial Court. 6. After considering the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the parties, the trial Court did not accept the claim of the plaintiff of sustaining injury and of undergoing medical treatment. Further, a criminal case Page 3 of 7 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: AJAYA KUMAR RANA Designation: P.A. Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 15-Jul-2025 11:33:03 instituted by the plaintiff against the defendant is also pending. The issue was thus answered against the plaintiff. The other issues were also similarly answered against the plaintiff and the suit was dismissed. 7. The plaintiff carried the matter in appeal to the District Court, which was heard by the learned Second Additional District Judge, Rourkela. Learned First Appellate Court re-appreciated the evidence on record and also arrived at the same conclusion that the plaintiff had not been able to establish the plaint allegations by adducing cogent evidence. The appeal was thus dismissed and the order of the trial Court was confirmed. 8. Being further aggrieved, the plaintiff has filed this appeal. 9.
Legal Reasoning
appreciation of the evidence on record. It is well settled that concurrent findings of fact are not to be interfered in second appeal unless it is shown that the same are either perverse or against the weight of evidence on record or are otherwise such as no prudent person would arrive at. Reference in this regard may be had to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Damodar Lal vs. Sohan Devi and others1. 12. Viewed in the above background, this Court finds nothing wrong in the conclusion arrived at both the courts below so as to be persuaded to interfere. For instance, the First Appellate Court has categorically stated as to why he 1 (2016) 3 SCC 78 Page 5 of 7 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: AJAYA KUMAR RANA Designation: P.A. Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 15-Jul-2025 11:33:03 did not accept the evidence adduced by the plaintiff regarding the occurrence under paragraph-13 of the judgment. The same is reproduced below. “The plaintiff has alleged in the plaint that the defendants abused her and made her naked in public. On careful scrutiny of the Ext.l (certified copy of FIR), it is found that no such obscene word is mentioned which the defendants have uttered on the alleged day and date of the occurrence. The plaintiff has not examined the witnesses mentioned in the charge-sheet of FIR. The only independent witness (PW.2) examined on behalf of the plaintiff discloses that the plaintiff was made naked by the defendants during the occurrence. But on perusal of FIR it is not mentioned that the plaintiff was made naked by the defendants. It is pertinent to mention that the name of PW.2 is not found in the body of FIR. So, it is clear that PW.2 is a tutored witness and he has no knowledge about the incident and deposing in the Court as per the instruction of the plaintiff. The plaintiff has alleged that the she has spent Rs.20,000/- for her medical treatment. But she has not fortified the said fact by any oral or documentary evidence. So, the question of sustaining injury and medical treatment undergone by the plaintiff is not to be accounted against the defendants in absence of a probable case against them. Moreover, already a criminal case instituted by the plaintiff against the defendants is pending before the Court of law for disposal. The said criminal case has not been disposed off yet. Thus, the plaintiff failed to prove the abusive language uttered by the defendants which amounts to an insult and is also defamatory to the plaintiff. So, the defendants are not liable for the action for defamation as alleged by the plaintiff against them. In such facts and circumstances this appellate court has also confirmed the view of the trial court that the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable in the eye of law, there is no cause of action to file the suit and the plaintiff has utterly Page 6 of 7 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: AJAYA KUMAR RANA Designation: P.A. Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 15-Jul-2025 11:33:03 failed to prove the wrongs committed by the defendants to her including making her naked, assaulting her and causing annoyance to her by uttering abusive words. the suit against Hence, the learned Trial Court has rightly dismissed the defendants. Accordingly, there is no error in the finding of the learned trial Court which needs intervention by this appellate forum. Hence, the order.” 13. Further, as has been held by the trial Court and according to this Court rightly so, the grievance relating to alleged assault is a matter to be decided by the concerned criminal Court in the criminal case instituted at the instance of plaintiff. This Court cannot offer any comment on that. As regards compensation for injuries, medical expenses etc. the plaintiff’s remedy also lies under the criminal law. 14. For the foregoing reasons therefore, this Court finds no perversity or manifest illegality in the impugned judgments so as to be persuaded to interfere therewith. 15. Resultantly, the Second Appeal is dismissed being not admitted. ………….……………. Sashikanta Mishra, Judge Orissa High Court, Cuttack The 8th July, 2025/ A.K. Rana, P.A. Page 7 of 7
Arguments
Heard Mr. T.K. Mishra, learned counsel for the appellant. 10. Mr. Mishra would argue that the finding of both the courts below that there is discrepancy with regard to the recitals of the FIR and the evidence adduced by the plaintiff is contrary to the settled position of law. An FIR Page 4 of 7 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: AJAYA KUMAR RANA Designation: P.A. Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 15-Jul-2025 11:33:03 cannot be treated as an encyclopaedia of a case. When the plaintiff adduced evidence of an independent witness, which clearly proved the occurrence, the courts below should not have rejected the same. 11. After considering the submissions and on going through the impugned judgments, this Court finds that the findings of both the courts below is based on subjective