NIBEDITA PRADHAN Vs. SANJUKTA NAYAK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ application, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 3.11.2005 passed by the District Judge, Khurda in ELP No.377 of 2003 wherein while allowing the petition dated 29.9.2005 filed by the petitioner in part, he refused to accept the certified copy of the report of the R.I., Naganpur.

(2.) The petitioner was Opp.Party No.1 while Opp.Party No.1 was the petitioner in ELP No.377 of 2003. Opp.Party Nos. 2 and 3 were the proforma Opp.Party Nos. 2 and 3 in the aforesaid case. On 29.9.2005 Opp.Party No.1 in the Court below filed a petition under Order-8, Rule 1A(3) read with Order-18 Sub-rule (2) and Section 151 of C.P.C. to accept 11 Nos. of documents on the grounds stated therein. The Court below allowed the petition in part and refused to accept certified copy of the letter bearing No.2153 of 2003 of the Tahasildar, Marshaghai, certified copy of the letter of the Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar and the certified copy of the report of the R.I., Naganpur. The first two certified copies were refused to be accepted since the same had already been marked exhibits on behalf of the Election petitioner. The trial Court refused to accept the R.I. report of Naganpur on the sole ground that the prayer dated 5.9,2005 of Opp.Party No.1 in the Court below to summon the Tahasildar, Marshaghai and R.I., Naganpur as witnesses in the Election Petition had been rejected by the said Court earlier and W.P.(C) No.11515 of 2005 carried against that order to this Court was dismissed on 23.9.2005. Being aggrieved with the order of non-acceptance of the certified copy of the said R.I. report, the Opp.Party No.1 of the Election petition has preferred this writ application.

(3.) Learned Counsel appearing for the present petitioner submitted that the prayer of the petitioner in the petition dated 5.9.2005 before the Court below was to accept the documents mentioned therein subject to consideration of the admissibility at the time of evidence of O.P.Ws. The prayer was not to admit those documents into evidence and marked the same as exhibits. As per the aforesaid petition dated 5.9.2005, much after filing of written statement in the Court below it came to the knowledge of petitioner that basing upon the report of the R.I., Naganpur, the Tahasildar, Marshaghai reported the Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar that the Caste of the petitioner is 'Sagarpesa'. So she applied for the certified copy of the R.I. report and after it was obtained filed the petition before the Court below to accept it along with other documents. As it appears, the Court below was satisfied with the ground set forth by the petitioner in filing the documents in question at a belated stage. So, he should not have rejected the petition on the sole ground that earlier a petition filed by the petitioner to summon the Tahasildar, Marshaghai and R.I., Naganpur to be examined as witnesses was rejected. Per contra, learned Counsel appearing for the Opp.Party No.1 submitted that as per Rule 5 of Miscellaneous Certificate Rules 1984, the Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar himself ought to have enquired into the dispute regarding caste of the petitioner or called for a report in this regard from an officer subordinate to him. R.I. Naganpur not being his subordinate, he ought not have called for such a report from him. So, the R.I. report not being relevant to the case, certified copy thereof cannot be admitted into evidence. Moreover, in an earlier order the trial Court earlier had rejected the prayer of the petitioner to summon the R.I of Naganpur to be examined as a witness, which on being challenged was confirmed by this Court. So according to the learned Counsel for Opp.Party No.1 the trial Court rightly refused to receive the certified copy of the R.I. report.