NALINIPRAVA ROUT AND ORS. Vs. KANHU CHARAN SAHU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AGGRIEVED by the orders dated 27.11.2014/24.12.2014 in W.P. (C) No. 1357 of 2006, the unsuccessful petitioners therein preferred the present writ appeal.

(2.) THE appellants are the plaintiffs and the respondent is the defendant in the Court of Civil Judge (J.D.), Jagatsinghpur in T.S. No. 47 of 2001 wherein a prayer was made for a decree of declaration that Registered Deed of Gift No. 493 of 1982 in respect of suit property executed by late Guri Dei in favour of the defendant is illegal, fraudulent, invalid, inoperative and not binding against late Guri Dei and that the defendant had acquired no valid title and possession by virtue of the said deed of gift and that the final consolidation ROR prepared in pursuance of the said deed of gift in favour of the defendant in respect of the suit land was wrong and illegal and that the alleged partition of the joint family properties effected by the defendant and his brother Banambar Sahu before Asst. Consolidation Officer in Partition Case No. 128 of 1982 is illegal and not binding on the plaintiffs and that the suit property along with other joint family properties of Balakrushna, Kelu and Fakir remained joint.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the appellants Mr. Baisnaba Ch. Das contended that the order of the learned Single Judge is illegal, arbitrary, contrary to law and against weight of evidence on record. It is contended that the learned Single Judge has erred both in facts and law and wrongly held that the petition for recall to re -examine P.W.1 was rejected by the trial Court against which W.P.(C) No. 7319 of 2003 was filed. It is contended that at the first instance the petition filed by the plaintiffs for recall and re -examination of P.W.1 was allowed. It is further contended that the learned Single Judge was not justified in holding that the judgment could not be pronounced by the trial Court due to interim order passed by this Court for which a direction was issued to the trial Court to dispose of the suit by hearing argument from both sides within one month. It is contended that when the evidence of the plaintiffs has not been closed and the material witnesses including appellant No. 2 have not been examined and the defendant has not began to adduce his evidence, it is purely illegal and arbitrary to direct the trial Court to pronounce the judgment by hearing arguments from both the sides. It is further contended that the plaintiffs -appellants who called the witness has a liberty to put any questions in the re -examination to get its explanation and accordingly the application for recall of P.W.1 for re -examination should have been allowed. Finally it is contended by the learned counsel for the appellants that the impugned order of the learned Single Judge passed on 27.11.2014 corrected on 24.12.2014 in W.P.(C) No. 1357 of 2006 is liable to be set -aside and the order of the learned Civil Judge (J.D.), Jagatsinghpur passed on 22.2.2002 in T.S. No. 47 of 2001 directing P.W.1 for re -examination is to be confirmed.