SITARAM SATAPATHY Vs. HARERAM SATAPATHY & OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This civil miscellaneous petition involves a challenge to the order dated 4.01.2018 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.) , Bolangir in civil Suit no.53 of 2007.

(2.) Short background involved in this case is that the opposite party no.1 as the plaintiff filed Civil Suit No.52 of 2007 in the court of learned Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.) , Bolangir for partition of the suit property involving the defendants.

(3.) Leaving apart the unnecessary details involving the suit as the same are unnecessary for the purpose of determination of the civil miscellaneous petition, this Court only confines the facts involving the miscellaneous petition involved therein. The defendant no.13 the present petitioner entering his appearance in the suit filed the written statement challenging the plaint allegations specifically submitting that the suit properties are not the joint family property of the parties, that there has been a partition effected in the family, the Schedule 'A' property is self acquired property of the Late Nilamani and his wife and the parties are leaving separately with separate cooking. During pendency of the suit, there is an amendment to the plaint requiring the present petitioner the defendant no.13 to file additional written statement. The trial court deputed an advocate commission for examination of the defendant no.13 who was seriously ill at the relevant point of time. Consequent upon this, the petitioner filed an affidavit before the Advocate Commission. Petitioner simultaneously also filed a petition in the court below on 6.8.2017 stating that the defendant no.13 has relied on the loan document of the plaintiff Hareram Satpathy in the written statement. It is also contended that on asking for a copy of the same under the provisions of the Right to Information Act, the Bank Authority in their letter dated 12.08.2016 and the letter dated 11.11.2016 communicated the petitioners that the document required has already been returned to the plaintiff/Hareram Satpathy. It is, thus, contended that since the document are in possession of the Plaintiff, the defendant no.13 is not in a position to produce the same and in the interest of justice, for the petitioner's having a Xerox copy of the loan document, the defendant no.13 i.e. the petitioner prayed for permission for secondary evidence involving the said document. At a subsequent date on 1.09.2017 the petitioner filed another petition seeking a direction to the plaintiff to produce the original loan documents returned to him by the CARD Bank Ltd. Plaintiffopposite party no.1 filed objection to the said petition stating therein that the said document is not in possession of the plaintiff as the same has never been returned to him.