EASTERN MEDIA LIMITED AND ORS. Vs. MADHUSUDAN PADHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Assailing the order dated 25.4.2007 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Khurda in C.S. No.148 of 2002, the instant petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. By the said order, learned trial court rejected the application of the defendants to examine the witnesses in support of their case.

(2.) Opposite party as plaintiff filed a suit for defamation and damage to the tune of Rs.10,100/- impleading the present petitioners as defendants in the court of learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Khurda, which is registered as C.S. No.148 of 2002. Pursuant to issuance of summons, the defendants entered appearance and filed written statement. After closure of evidence of the plaintiff, the defendants examined their witnesses. On 20.2.2007, the defendants filed a petition stating therein the list of witnesses to be examined. It is stated that the names of the witnesses have been inadvertently left out and unless they are examined, defendants will suffer irreparable loss and injury. The plaintiff filed objection to the same. By order dated 25.4.2007, learned trial court rejected the application holding, inter alia, that the defendants have not explained the reason for which they did not disclose and add the names of the witnesses. They have not filed any document to show that the proposed additional witnesses have direct knowledge as to the facts and circumstances and their examination in the court is very much essential for deciding the issues. Ample opportunities have been given to the defendants to examine as many as seven witnesses on their behalf even though the plaintiff has examined only one witness. Defendants failed to satisfy the court that after the exercise of due diligence, any evidence was not within their knowledge or could not be produced by them at the time when they were leading their evidence in court. They have also failed to give the reasons as to why permission could be accorded to them to call the additional seven witnesses other than those whose names appear in the first list of witnesses. In absence of sufficient cause for the omission to mention the names of the seven witnesses in the earlier list, there is no justification to allow the petition filed by the defendants, which would delay the proceeding and cause prejudice to the plaintiff.

(3.) Heard Mr. S. P. Sarangi, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. S.C. Dash on behalf of Mr. L. Bhuyan, learned counsel for the opposite party.