Orissa High Court
CMP/1139/2026 of KALYANI PRADHAN Vs SANDHYA CHAKRAVARTY on 7 August 2026
of 2 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CMP No.1139 of 2026 CNR No. ODHC010511312026 Kalyani Pradhan …. Petitioner Represented by Adv.– Ms. Ankita Swain, Advocate -Versus- Sandhya Chakravarty and others …. Opposite Parties Represented by Adv.– CORAM: HON’ BLE
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CMP No.1139 of 2026
CNR No. ODHC010511312026
Kalyani Pradhan
….
Petitioner
Represented by Adv.–
Ms. Ankita Swain, Advocate
-Versus-
Sandhya Chakravarty and others
….
Opposite Parties
Represented by Adv.–
CORAM:
HON’ BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
Order No.
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER
07.08.2026
01.
1. The instant revisional application is directed against an order dated 18.06.2025 passed by the learned 2nd Addl. Sr. (Civil Judge), Bhubaneswar in Civil Suit No.155 of 2008, by which an application filed by the petitioner seeking to file the document as per the list and to be marked as an Exhibit from the side of the plaintiff, is rejected.
2. Admittedly, the plaintiff had deposed and after cross-examination was discharged, the second witness of the defendant was being cross- examined by the plaintiff-petitioner and at this juncture, the instant application is taken out alleging that in an earlier suit, which is the subject matter of challenge in the instant suit so far as the decree passed therein is concerned, the defendants therein have filed written statement and also deposed therein which are required to be brought up in the record and to be marked as an Exhibit from the side of the plaintiff.
3. It appears from the record that the persons, who filed the written statement and/or deposed in an earlier suit, are also arrayed as a party defendant in the instant suit, even one of them is cited as a second witness, who is facing cross-examination.
4. It is a rule of evidence that the documents relied upon by the party to be received in evidence must be tendered through a witness and the Court after satisfying itself that the same has been proved in accordance with the law applicable in this regard may mark the same as an Exhibit. There is no fetter on the part of the plaintiff to confront the defendant witness at the time of cross-examination to a document which relates to him despite the same having not been shown in the list appended to the written statement or the plaint.
5. The trial Court has permitted the plaintiff-petitioner to confront the second witness, who is facing cross-examination, with the said document, which relates to him. We do not find any incongruity and/or illegality in this regard. The other person is also impleaded as a party defendant therein and in the event he deposed in the said matter, there is no fetter on the part of the plaintiff in repleting the same.
6. This Court, thus, does not find any infirmity and/or illegality in the impugned order. The revisional application is, thus, dismissed.
(Harish Tandon)
Chief Justice
S.K. Jena/Sr. Secy. Digitally Signed Signed by: SANJAY KUMAR JENA Designation: Asst. Registrar-cum-Sr. Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack. Date: 13-Aug-2026 10:49:00 Signature Not Verified