Orissa High Court
Bholeswar Mahanta And Another vs Purna Chandra Mahanta .... Opposite ... on 16 September, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
C.M.P. No.1369 of 2019
(An application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950)
Bholeswar Mahanta and another .... Petitioners
-versus-
Purna Chandra Mahanta .... Opposite Party
Appeared in this case by Hybrid Arrangement
(Virtual/Physical Mode):
For Petitioners - Mr. D.P. Mohanty,
Advocate.
For Opposite Party - Mr. B. Bhuyan,
Sr. Advocate.
assisted by
Smt. S. Sahu,
Advocate.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.C.BEHERA
Date of Hearing :16.09.2025 :: Date of Judgment :16.09.2025
A.C. Behera, J. This Civil Miscellaneous Petition under Article
227 of the Constitution of India, 1950 has been filed by the petitioners
{defendants in the suit vide C.S. No.127 of 2014 pending before the
learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Keonjhar} challenging the
acceptance of the R.o.R. submitted by the plaintiff as per order dated
31.10.2019 and marking the same as Ext.25 on the ground that, the
said document vide Ext.25 (R.o.R.) should not have been accepted
and marked as Ext.25 on behalf of the plaintiff (opposite party) after
closure of evidence from the both the sides at the time of hearing of
the arguments.
2. Heard from the learned counsels of both the sides.
3. During the course of hearing of this CMP, learned counsel
for the petitioners (defendants before the Trial Court vide C.S.
No.127 of 2014) contended that, in case of acceptance of the
additional document after closure of evidence from both the sides and
marking of the same as Ext.25 on behalf of the plaintiff in the suit
vide C.S. No.127 of 2014, it was the duty of the learned Trial Court to
give opportunity to the defendants for adducing rebuttal evidence
against the same. But, without doing so, learned Trial Court has
simply accepted the document i.e. R.o.R. and has marked the same as
Ext.25 on behalf of the plaintiff. For which, the defendants being the
petitioners have challenged the same by filing this CMP under Article
227 of the Constitution of India, 1950.
To which, learned senior advocate for the O.P. (plaintiff
before the Trial Court vide C.S. No.127 of 2014) vehemently objected
contending that, the document, which has been marked as Ext.25 is
the certified copy of the R.o.R., which is a public document, for
which, there was no impediment under law on the part of the learned
Trial Court to accept the said certified copy of the R.o.R. filed on
behalf of the plaintiff and marking the same as Ext.25 as per O.7
R.14(3) of the CPC, 1908 even after closure of evidence from both
the sides for the just decision of the suit in order to show the
reduction of the purchased area of the defendants from the original
R.o.R. vide Ext.E after mutation, for which, non-providing of any
opportunity in the impugned order to the defendants by the learned
Trial Court for adducing rebuttal evidence against the marking of the
document vide Ext.25 was not improper. Therefore, the question of
interfering with the impugned order by this Court through this CMP
exercising supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India, 1950 does not arise.
5. It is very fundamental in civil law that, whenever any
document is accepted by the Court at the instance of one party, it is
natural and obvious for providing opportunity to other sides for
adducing rebuttal evidence against the said document in question for
no other reason, but only in order to comply the principles of natural
justice.
6. Therefore, by applying the above principles of law, I find
justification for making a slight interference with the impugned order
passed by the learned Trial Court through this CMP filed by the
petitioners allowing the CMP in part.
7. Hence, this CMP filed by the petitioners under Article 227 of
the Constitution of India, 1950 is allowed in part.
Therefore, keeping the impugned order dated 31.10.2019
passed in C.S. No.127 of 2014 intact in its all respect, the learned
Trial Court is directed to give liberty to the petitioners (defendants in
the suit vide C.S. No.127 of 2014) to adduce any rebuttal evidence, if
any, they (defendants) desire against the marking of document as
exhibit vide Ext.25 on behalf of the plaintiff and to dispose of the suit
vide C.S. No.127 of 2014 as per law within a period of three months
from the date of production of the certified copy of this judgment
before the learned Trial Court in the suit vide C.S. No.127 of 2014.
8. As such, this CMP filed by the petitioners (defendants) is
disposed of finally.
9. Due to final disposal of this CMP, all the interim orders in
this CMP are held to be terminated being infructuous automatically.
(A.C. Behera),
Judge.
Orissa High Court, Cuttack.
16.09.2025//Utkalika Nayak//
Signature Not Junior Stenographer
Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: UTKALIKA
NAYAK
Reason: Authentication
Location: High Court of
Orissa, Cuttack
Date: 16-Sep-2025
16:12:37
