[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Orissa High Court
Election vs Ananta Narayan Jena on 9 February, 2026
ORISSA HIGH COURT : CUTTACK
I.A. No.145 of 2025
(Arising out of ELPET No.11 of 2024)
***
Gorachand Mangaraj
...
Election Petitioner
-VERSUS-
Ananta Narayan Jena ...
Respondent
Counsel appeared for the parties:
For the Petitioner : Mr. Bidyadhar Mishra, Sr. Advocate.
Mr. T. K. Biswal, Adv.
For the Opp. Party : Mr. S.K. Dash, Sr. Advocate
Mr. A.K. Otta, Adv.
P R E S E N T:
HONOURABLE
MR. JUSTICE ANANDA CHANDRA BEHERA
Date of Hearing: 20.01.2026 :: Date of Order : 09.02.2026
J UDGMENT
ANANDA CHANDRA BEHERA, J.--
1. This Interlocutory Application has been filed by the Election
Petitioner in Election Petition No.11 of 2024 praying for calling for
the documents indicated in the schedule of the I.A. from the
custody of the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax,
Odisha, Bhubaneswar stating in the I.A. that, the documents
mentioned in the schedule of the I.A. are very much necessary
and essential to decide the issues and to substantiate the
pleadings of the Election Petitioner.
The documents indicated in the I.A. as SCHEDULE OF
DOCUMENTS are in the custody of the Principal Chief
Commissioner of Income Tax, Odisha, Bhubaneswar. If the said
documents will not be called for from the Principal Chief
Commissioner of Income Tax, Odisha, Bhubaneswar, he (Election
Petitioner) shall be prejudiced and will suffer irreparable loss and
injury.
2. Heard from the learned Senior Counsel for the Election
Petitioner and the learned Senior Counsel for the respondent.
3. During the course of hearing, the learned Senior Counsel for
the respondent (returned candidate) submitted that, the
document mentioned in the schedule of the application are in no
way relevant for deciding the controversies between the parties.
Therefore, this I.A. filed by the petitioner is devoid of any merit,
the same is liable to be dismissed.
4. The provisions of law envisaged in Section 87 of the R.P. Act,
1951 clearly clarify that, subject to the provisions of the said Act
and of any rules made under that Act, every election petition shall
be tried by the High Court, as nearly as may be, in accordance
with the procedure applicable under the Code of Civil Procedure,
1908 (5 of 1908) to the trial of suits.
5. It has been envisaged in Order 13, Rule 10 (2) of the CPC,
1908 that, if bringing to a document in to the record is essential
for proving a case of a party, the same should not ordinarily be
refused. Because, it is the duty of the Court to find out the truth.
It is the settled propositions of law that, when the
documents in question are not under the control of a party and
the said documents are required for the purpose of proper
adjudication and disposal of a suit or a proceeding, in that
situation, the Courts or the Tribunals cannot refuse the prayer of
a party for calling for the documents from the custody of others,
when the said documents are essentially required for the true and
correct disposal of a suit or a proceeding.
On this aspect, the propositions of law has already been
clarified by the Hon'ble Courts in the ratio of the following
decisions:
i. In a case between Laxman Vs. Parsuram & Another
reported in 2018 (3) Civ.C.C. 602 (Raj.) that, when the
documents in question was in the possession of the
police authorities, having subject matter of proceedings
initiated by the plaintiff by filing an FIR against the third-
party as well as defendants and when the said document
is relevant and necessary for the purpose of true and
correct disposal of the suit, in that case, the application
for calling for of the documents was allowed.
ii. In a case between G. Suverna Bai & Others Vs. M.
Ramesh Chander Rao & Others reported in 2016 (2)
Civ.C.C. 257 (Hyd.) that, if bringing on record a
document is essential for proving the case by a party,
ordinarily the same should not be refused, since it is the
duty of the Court's to find out the truth. Application
allowed.
iii. In a case between Mangilal Vs. Nandalal Lohariya
reported in 2018 (3) Civil. Court Cases 572 (Raj.) that,
when the documents in question were not in the control
of the plaintiff and, therefore, the concerned Court
required the said documents for proper adjudication of
the suit, the calling for of the same is held to be well
justified. No interference with the same is warranted.
6. Here in this matter at hand, when the documents indicated
in the schedule of the application of this I.A. have been sought for
to be called for from the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income
Tax, Odisha, Bhubaneswar and when the as per the Election
Petitioner, the said documents are required for the true and
correct disposal of the Election Petition and if the said documents
will be called for, the same will not cause any prejudice to the
Opp. Party (respondent in Election Petition No.11 of 2024), rather
the said documents shall be helpful for the just decision of the
Election Petition No.11 of 2024 and when it is the duty of the
Court to call for the required documents for the just and proper
decision of a suit or proceeding like the Election Petition No.11 of
2024, then, at this juncture, by applying the propositions of law
enunciated in the ratio of the aforesaid decisions, I find no
justification to disallow this I.A. filed by the Election Petitioner.
7. Therefore, this I.A. filed by the Election Petitioner in Election
Petition No.11 of 2024 is allowed.
8. The documents indicated in the petition of this I.A. filed by
the Election Petitioner as "SCHEDULE OF DOCUMENTS" be
called for from the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax,
Odisha, Bhubaneswar to the Election Petition No.11 of 2024 with
a direction to Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax,
Odisha, Bhubaneswar to transmit the same within 15 days of
receiving the information from the Registry about such
transmission.
9. Copy of this Judgment be sent to the Principal Chief
Commissioner of Income Tax, Odisha, Bhubaneswar by the
Registry immediately to comply the directions made in this
Judgment by the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax,
Odisha, Bhubaneswar within the above stipulated period.
10. As such, this I.A is disposed of finally.
(ANANDA CHANDRA BEHERA)
Signature High
NotCourt
Verified JUDGE
of Orissa, Cuttack
Digitally Signed The 09 .02. 2026// Rati Ranjan Nayak
Signed by: RATI RANJAN NAYAK
Sr. Stenographer
Reason: Authentication
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack, India.
Date: 09-Feb-2026 17:49:15
