Election vs Ananta Narayan Jena
2026 Latest Caselaw 1135 Ori

Citation : 2026 Latest Caselaw 1135 Ori
Judgement Date : 9 February, 2026

[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Orissa High Court

Election vs Ananta Narayan Jena on 9 February, 2026

                     ORISSA HIGH COURT : CUTTACK

                         I.A. No.143 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 District Sub-Registrar, 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 District Sub-Registrar,

Bhubaneswar. If the said documents will not be called for from

the District Sub-Registrar, 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

respondent has already obtained the valuation report of his land

and building from the DSR, Bhubaneswar and approved valuer,

for which, the question of calling for the same from the DSR,

Bhubaneswar allowing this I.A. filed by the petitioner does not

arise. Therefore, this I.A. filed by the Election Petitioner 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 District Sub-Registrar, Bhubaneswar

and when as per 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