Skip to content


Property Association of Baptist Churches Private Limited and anr. Vs. State of Orissa and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtOrissa High Court
Decided On
Case NumberCivil Revision No. 282 of 1983
Judge
Reported in1984(I)OLR164
ActsCode of Civil Procedure (CPC) - Order 12, Rules 1, 2 and 3
AppellantProperty Association of Baptist Churches Private Limited and anr.
RespondentState of Orissa and ors.
Appellant AdvocateR. Mohanty, M.R. Patra, M. Patra and U.S. Patnaik
Respondent AdvocateAddl. S.C., ;K.N. Jena, M.R. Panda and G.R. Nai
DispositionPetition allowed
Excerpt:
.....followed for confiscation of the vehicle and for its sale is punitive in nature and not with a view to give benefit to anybody including the department which initiated the confiscation proceeding. apart from that, the claim of the orissa state financial corporation as against its loanee (who had taken the vehicle on hire- purchase agreement) brings the loanee and the sureties within the default clause under the state financial corporation act, 1951 or the heirs and successors of such persons. procedure is provided in the act, 1951 and the rules thereof about the manner in which such loan is to be recovered, and in that context only the vehicle under the hire-purchase agreement is placed as the first charge. if such property is not available for any reason, then the loan is not..........some of the documents were refused to be admitted in evidence by the impugned order was that the plea of the plaintiffs that the documents were misplaced some where and could not be sorted out in time was not acceptable. it may be noted that the same plea was taken by the plaintiffs in respect of the document for which the court has granted leave order 13 rule 2, c. p. c. after hearing the counsels for both the parties, i am of the view that the documents which are sought to be admitted in evidence are relevant and leave should have been granted as prayed for. at the stage of trial a lenient view has to be taken for admission of the documents which are material and relevant to avoid chances of remand. that apart it appears from the records of this case that each of the parties have.....
Judgment:

P.C. Misra, J.

1. This revision is directed against an order dated 23-3- 1983 passed by the Additional Sub Judge, Balasore, refusing to admit some documents during the course of hearing. Two petitions were filed by the plaintiffs, one on 16-3-83 and the other on 17-3-83 purported to be under the provisions of Order 13 Rule 2, C. P. C. seeking permission of the court to admit into evidence the documents enumerated therein. Their plea for production of the documents at a late stage was that the documents are relevant and material for a fair decision of the court which could not be filed earlier as the same were misplaced. The learned Additional Sub Judge has also disposed of some other applications in the same order with which we are not concerned in this revision.

2. The main ground on which some of the documents were refused to be admitted in evidence by the impugned order was that the plea of the plaintiffs that the documents were misplaced some where and could not be sorted out in time was not acceptable. It may be noted that the same plea was taken by the plaintiffs in respect of the document for which the court has granted leave order 13 Rule 2, C. P. C. After hearing the counsels for both the parties, I am of the view that the documents which are sought to be admitted in evidence are relevant and leave should have been granted as prayed for. At the stage of trial a lenient view has to be taken for admission of the documents which are material and relevant to avoid chances of remand. That apart it appears from the records of this case that each of the parties have been filing documents during the course of trial and they have been permitted to do so taking a liberal view of the matter. I, therefore, feel that the same standard should also be applicable to the plaintiffs and the plaintiffs should be permitted to adduce, the documents enumerated in his application dated 16-3-83 and 17-3-83 to be received in evidence subject to proof and relevancy. Hence, this revision is allowed but there would be no order as to costs.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //