PRATIVA KAR Vs. ANANDA CHANDRA DAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ application, challenge has been made to the order dated 6-1 -2005 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), First Court, Cuttack in Money Suit No. 87 of 2000 rejecting an application filed by the petitioner to summon one Nrusingha Charan Sahu the Sarbadhikari of Sankirtan Mandali, Baisbhaga who maintained the records of all the Sahi Adhikari.

(2.) The facts as narrated in the writ application are as follows : The petitioner as plaintiff filed the suit against the defendant for compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- for using defamatory words in a public meeting. The opposite party-defendant with his wife was permanently residing- in the house of one Gunanidhi Das (father of the plaintiff) from 1966. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant, who is her brother-in-law (husband of the elder sister), was forcibly residing in the said house. The defendant with mischievous idea of grabbing the property of his father-in-law did not vacate the same. Therefore, dissension arose between the plaintiff and the defendant. To settle the dispute between the parties, a Sahi Committee was convened by Bhagirathi Swain (P. W. 4), the President/of the Sahi. In course of the said meeting, on 30.7.2000 the defendant was unwilling to co-operate for settlement of the dispute and abused the plaintiff, which caused damage to her reputation and defamed her. Therefore, she was entitled to the compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,00,000/- for the said damage. The defendant appeared in the suit and filed his written statement. Thereafter, the plaintiff examined four witnesses including herself. Baghirathi Swain, who was examined as P. W. 4, during his cross examination has specifically deposed that he resigned from the post of Sahi Adhikari through letter dated 5-4-2000. The evidence on the side of the plaintiff was closed on 31-8-2004. Thereafter, the defendant adduced his evidence which continued till 16-12-2004. The suit was posted to 23-12-2004 for argument. On the said date, the plaintiff filed her application to summon one Nrusingha Charan Sahu, who maintained the records of Sankirtan Mandali. To the said application, the defendant filed his objection. Considering the facts and circumstances narrated in the application and the objection filed by the defendant, the learned Civii Judge (Senior Division) rejected the said application holding that in the list of witnesses filed by the plaintiff on 16-9-2002 she had not mentioned about the witness Nrusingha Charan Sahu nor did she explain in the application as to why she had not earlier sought for examining the said witness. Also there were no materials available on record to indicate that there was a Sankirtan Mandali which maintained the records of all Sahi Adhikari of Cuttack and P. W. 4 also admitted that there was a Resolution Book which was with one Adhikari, namely, Surendra Mohanty.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that examination of the said witness is necessary for the just decision in the case and the rejection of the plaintiff's application by the Court below is illegal as it is not to be pleaded as to what evidence is to be adduced to prove the fact that Sri Swain was continuing as President even the fact that he had tendered the registration was proved.