GOURANGA SAHOO Vs. ROHITASWA MEHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision is directed against the order dated 13 -11 -1998 passed by the Add. District Judge, Balangir, in M.J. A. No. 11/10 of 1997 -98 confirming the order dated 28 -3 -1997 passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Patnagarh, in M.J. C. No. 3 of 1995, rejecting the Petitioner's application under Order 9, Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short, 'the Code').

(2.) BRIEFLY stated, the facts are:

(3.) ON perusal of the order of the learned appellate court as well as the trial court. I find that there is no whisper either in the order of the trial court or the appellate court regarding the manner in which the Courts below dealt with the evidence of p. w. 3, who, according to the Petitioner, is a vital witness. In my view the courts below by not taking the evidence of p. w. 3 into consideration has committed an error for which the impugned order cannot be sustained. It is also a well settled principle that the object is to enable the courts to substantial justice to parties by disposing of the matters on merits. (See Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag v. Mst. Katiji : A.I.R 1987 S.C. 1353).