(An Application Under Article 227 Of The ... vs Laxman Bag
2026 Latest Caselaw 2980 Ori

Citation : 2026 Latest Caselaw 2980 Ori
Judgement Date : 30 March, 2026

[Cites 3, Cited by 0]

Orissa High Court

(An Application Under Article 227 Of The ... vs Laxman Bag on 30 March, 2026

      IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
                       I.A. No.4 of 2026
              (Arising out of ELPET No.12/2024)
        (An application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950)
    Giriraj Singh Majhi                          ....      Election Petitioner
                                     -versus-
    Laxman Bag                                   ....             Respondent

Appeared in this case by Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical Mode):

For Election Petitioner -Mr. G. Agarwal, Senior Advocate, Assisted by Ms. S. Srivastaba, Adv.

             For Respondent            -      Mr. S. Mohanty, Advocate.

             CORAM:
             HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.C.BEHERA

Date of Hearing :10.03.2026 :: Date of Judgment :30.03.2026

A.C. Behera, J. This Interlocutory Application has been filed by

the Election Petitioner in Election Petition No.12 of 2024 praying for

calling for the documents indicated in the schedule of the I.A. from

the custody of the District Election Officer-cum-Collector, Bolangir

stating in the I.A. that, the documents mentioned in the schedule of

I.A. are very much essential to decide the relief(s) sought for by him

(Election Petitioner) and the said required documents are in the

custody of the District Election Officer-cum-Collector, Bolangir. If

the same are not called for, an effective adjudication of the Election

Petition cannot be made. For which, the said documents are required

to be called for.

2. Heard from the learned Senior Counsel for the Election

Petitioner and the learned Counsel for the respondent.

3. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the

respondent objected to the I.A. of the Election Petitioner contending

that, in case the I.A. filed by the Election Petitioner is allowed, the

same will unnecessarily cause delay in disposing of the Election

Petition, by which, the respondent/Opp. Party shall be prejudiced and

the same will cause an unnecessary burden on the District Election

Officer-cum-Collector Balangir. Therefore, the I.A. filed by the

petitioner has no 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 the 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. Order 13, Rule 10 (2) of the CPC, 1908 provides that, if any

document or record is essential for the just decision of the case or

proceeding and if any party prays for calling for such documents

from the custody of any person or authority, the same should not

ordinarily be refused. Because, it is the duty of the Court to find out

the truth referring all the essential materials, evidence and documents

relating to the case or proceeding.

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 thirdparty 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 I.A. have been sought for to be called for from

the custody of District Election Officer-cum-Collector, Bolangir and

when 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.12 of 2024), rather

the said documents shall be helpful for the just decision of the

Election Petition No.12 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.12 of 2024, then, at

this juncture, by applying the propositions of law enunciated in the