BENNETT COLEMAN AND CO LTD Vs. J B PATNAIK
LAWS(ORI)-1988-3-2
HIGH COURT OF ORISSA
Decided on March 09,1988

BENNETT COLEMAN AND CO.LTD Appellant
VERSUS
J.B.PATNAIK Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

ADARAMANI DEI V. ICHHAMONI BEWA [RELIED ON]
MANGE RAM VS. BRIJ MOHAN [RELIED ON]



Cited Judgements :-

A SHANKAR LINGAM VS. MEHARUNISSA BEGUM [LAWS(APH)-2007-1-53] [REFERRED TO]
BHAGABAT ROUT VS. SUDARSAN ROUT [LAWS(ORI)-2008-4-22] [REFERRED TO]
DUVVADA PARASURAM CHOUDARY VS. SANTHA DALAYYA [LAWS(APH)-2014-2-12] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF ORISSA VS. BIRANCHI NARAYAN DAS AND OTHERS [LAWS(ORI)-2016-12-21] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

- (1.)This is a petition by defendants 1 to 3 for exemption of compliance with the provisions of O.16, R.1 of the Civil P.C. ('Code' for short). It is stated in the petition that they came to know that their witnesses in the suit were threatened by the plaintiff and/or his representatives/supporters in order to gain them over. They are also being tempted with money so as to desist from giving evidence in the suit against the plaintiff and in support of defendants 1 to 3. The lives of the witnesses on account of threats are in danger. Therefore, in the interest of justice their names should not be disclosed in accordance with the provisions of O.16, R.1 of the Code. They have undertaken to produce the witnesses in time whenever they are called upon to be examined.
(2.)The plaintiff in a counter has stoutly denied the allegations made in the petition. It is stated that none of the witnesses of defendants 1 to 3 has been threatened by him or his representatives or supporters. None of them has been gained over or tempted with money so as to desist them from giving evidence against him and in support of these defendants. Their lives are also not in danger. As a matter of fact, until 30-7-1987, when defendants 1 to 3 filed their list of three witnesses, he had no occasion to know the names of their witnesses. It is stated that for fair trial of the suit and in the interest of justice he should be given sufficient time to ascertain the antecedents and the background of the witnesses who are to figure as defence witnesses so that he would be in a position to lead appropriate and necessary evidence, as well as to enable his Advocate to crossexamine the said witnesses.
(3.)A rejoinder has been filed by defendants 1 to 3 denying some of the statements made in the plaintiff's counter. It is not necessary to make specific reference to the same.


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.