[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Orissa High Court
India) vs Abhiram Sahoo And Others .... Opposite ... on 22 December, 2025
Author: B.P. Routray
Bench: B.P. Routray
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BASANTA KUMAR BARIK
Reason: Authentication
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
Date: 25-Dec-2025 13:01:42
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
C.M.P. No.641 of 2025
(In the matter of an application under Article 227 of the Constitution of
India)
Rebati Behera .... Petitioner
-versus-
Abhiram Sahoo and others .... Opposite Parties
Advocate(s) appeared in this case:-
For Petitioner : Mr. A.P. Bose, Advocate
For Opposite Parties : Mr. B. Baug, Senior Advocate
For O.P. Nos.1 & 2
Mr. T.K. Mishra, Advocate
For O.P. Nos.4, 7, 10 &11
CORAM: JUSTICE B.P. ROUTRAY
JUDGMENT
nd
22 December 2025
B.P. Routray, J.
1. Heard Mr. A.P. Bose, learned Advocate for the Petitioner, Mr.
B. Baug, learned Senior Advocate for the Opposite Parties 1 & 2 and
Mr. T.K. Mishra, learned Advocate for the Opposite Parties 4, 7, 10 &
2. It is submitted on behalf of the parties that Opposite Parties 1 &
2 along with Opposite Parties 4, 7, 10 & 11 are the contesting parties
Signed by: BASANTA KUMAR BARIK
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
Date: 25-Dec-2025 13:01:42
and the presence of other Opposite Parties may not be necessary before
this Court.
3. Present C.M.P. is directed against order dated 22.01.2025 of
learned 3rd Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Cuttack passed in
C.M.A. No.181 of 2021, wherein the prayer of the Petitioner to accept
certain documents in evidence has been refused.
4. Present Petitioner in the execution proceeding of the decree filed
the petition under Order 21 Rule 99 read with Rule 101 of the C.P.C.
praying to protect his possession, which is registered as C.M.A.
No.181 of 2021. The Opposite Parties filed their reply. In course of
hearing of the petition and before adducing evidence, the Petitioner
filed a petition dated 08.01.2025 praying to grant leave to receive
certain documents (30 documents as per the schedule) in evidence. The
learned trial court rejected the same on the ground that the documents
so filed by the Petitioner are the photocopies and therefore being in
nature of secondary evidence cannot be accepted in evidence.
5. Mr. A.P. Bose, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that,
though the C.M.A. has not reached the stage of adducing evidence,
Signed by: BASANTA KUMAR BARIK
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
Date: 25-Dec-2025 13:01:42
such a prayer of the Petitioner to bring those documents on record may
be treated as a prayer under Order 7 Rule 14 C.P.C. He further submits
that at this stage before beginning of the evidence, the court is debarred
from opining upon merits of such documents that the same cannot be
accepted in evidence.
6. Mr. B. Baug, learned Senior Counsel as well as Mr. T.K.
Mishra, learned counsel for the respective opposite parties submit that,
the prayer in the petition dated 08.01.2025 is to accept those
documents in evidence, which are photocopies only, and therefore, the
learned trial court is right in refusing such prayer with observation that
those documents cannot be accepted in evidence.
7. Admittedly, the C.M.A. is at the stage of hearing where evidence
is yet to begin. It is submitted on behalf of the Petitioner to accept
those documents on record in terms of Order 7 Rule 14 C.P.C.
8. Order 7 rule 14 C.P.C. specifies that, a document which ought to
be produced along with the plaint may not be accepted without leave of
the court if it is produced in evidence. But here in the present case,
admittedly, the case has not reached to the stage of evidence and the
Signed by: BASANTA KUMAR BARIK
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
Date: 25-Dec-2025 13:01:42
Petitioner filed such a petition producing photocopies of those
documents before beginning his evidence.
9. It is true that production of documents at the time of filing of the
plaint is different from production of documents in evidence. As a
matter of evidence, the court has to examine the admissibility of the
documents to be received in evidence. In the case at hand, the
documents were not produced at the time of filing of the plaint, i.e.
C.M.A. No.181 of 2021. So, in terms of sub-rule (3) of Rule 14 of
Order 7 C.P.C., the Plaintiff can produce those documents only at the
stage of evidence, once he has failed to file those documents along
with the plaint. This provision applies to production of documents by a
Plaintiff and in any case, the provision is discretionary and it has to be
operated in a manner that Court is able to ascertain the truth and put an
end to the controversy. When a document is received in evidence of
course the admissibility of the document has to be looked into. But
what is contended on behalf of the Petitioner that those documents are
not produced in evidence, but to be taken on record which the
Petitioner could not file at the time of filing of the C.M.A. is thus not
permissible before the case reaches the stage of evidence.
Signed by: BASANTA KUMAR BARIK
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
Date: 25-Dec-2025 13:01:42
10. The prayer of the Petitioner as seen in the petition is to receive
those documents in evidence, which are the photocopies only instead
of originals or certified copies. It is true that, a document cannot be
accepted in evidence without any pleading made to that effect. Thus,
the court has rightly entered into the merit of the documents to reject
receipt of all those documents produced by the Petitioner. However,
keeping in view the fact that the Petitioner has referred to certain sale
deeds and some other documents in the body of the C.M.A., it is felt
appropriate in the interest of justice to permit him to produce those
documents at the stage of evidence subject to the admissibility of
documents.
11. In the circumstances stated above, the C.M.P. is disposed of
permitting the Petitioner to produce such documents at the stage of
evidence, subject to the condition that pleadings are there in the
C.M.A. application to that effect, and it is open for the learned
Executing Court to assess the admissibility of those documents
separately in consonance with law.
(B.P. Routray)
Judge
B.K. Barik/Secretary
