TANKADHAR BEHERA Vs. LINGARAJ LENKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Assailing the Judgment dtd. 1/12/2009 of the Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, Dhenkanal rendered in RFA No.61 of 2006 directed against the Judgment and decree dtd. 14/9/2006 and 21/9/2006 respectively passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Dhenkanal in CS No.50 of 2005, though second appeal, RSA bearing No.102 of 2010, was preferred under Sec. 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ('CPC', for brevity), being allowed to be converted vide Order dtd. 30/9/2010 to Civil Revision Petition, the petitioner (Respondent-Plaintiff) approached this Court invoking provisions of Sec. 115, with a prayer to set aside the Judgment and Order of the Appellate Court.The facts:

(2.) The facts as adumbrated by the petitioner in the civil revision petition reveals that in the Civil Suit bearing No.50 of 2005 instituted before the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Dhenkanal it was the case of the petitionerrespondent-plaintiff that on 2/7/2005 at about 9.00 P.M. during a quarrel that ensued between two groups in which one Subhendu Kumar Nayak while mercilessly being assaulted, the petitioner was present at that relevant time and place of occurrence. He intervened and rescued Subhendu Kumar Nayak from the clutches of miscreants. Thereafter, at around 10.00 P.M. the petitioner and said Suvendu Kumar Nayak went to Dhenkanal Town Police Station for lodging First Information Report, but the present opposite party, the Diary Charge Officer (for short, 'DCO') on that day at Dhenkanal Town Police Station, refused to receive the First Information Report ('FIR'). When asked, the opposite party suddenly became violent and tore the FIR. Said opposite party not only abused using filthy language but also wrongfully confined the petitioner and put him inside the hazat (lock up) of the Dhenkanal Town Police Station. Later the opposite party released from the confinement and forcibly obtained an undertaking from the petitioner though the latter had not committed any offence. It was the case of the petitioner that he was threatened of facing dire consequence, if he would divulge the incident to any other person.

(3.) On such pleadings, the trial court framed the following issues: