FINOLEX PLASTRO PLASSON LTD. Vs. LALATENDU DEO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the order dated 20.4.2006 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Koraput in C.S. No. 16 of 2003, the instant petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

(2.) Opposite party as plaintiff laid C.S. No. 16 of 2003 in the court of learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Koraput seeking refund of Rs. 64,221/ - as subsidy from the defendant. Pursuant to issuance of summons, defendant entered appearance and filed comprehensive written statement denying the assertions made in the plaint. After closure of evidence from the side of the plaintiff, the defendant filed an application to call for certain documents from the Horticulture Department, Koraput. It is stated that the defendant applied for the certified copies of the said documents but copies were not furnished. The petitioner resisted the petition on the ground that the Horticulture Department, Koraput is not a party to the suit. Thus no direction can be given to the said department to produce the said documents. By order dated 20.4.2006, the learned trial court rejected the petition on the ground that no good cause has been shown in calling for the documents soon after settlement of the issues. It was further held that the application was not bona fide.

(3.) Heard Mr. P.K. Rath, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. H.P. Mohanty on behalf of Mr. S.D. Das, learned Senior Advocate for the opposite party.