AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
K.R. Mohapatra, J
This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.
In course of hearing, Mr. Pradhan, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that at Para-10 of the Written Statement (Page-50) it has been specifically stated that the Plaintiff has acknowledged the partition dated 1st April, 1975 and thereafter on 11th February, 1976. The Wealth-tax Returns of the Plaintiff’s brothers and sisters were also being filed on the basis of the said partition.
The Defendants also relied upon the Wealth-tax Returns of the Plaintiff for the year 2004-05. When the Plaintiff expressed his ignorance about filing of the Wealth-tax Returns acknowledging the partition in the year 2004-05 in his cross-examination and also denied the suggestion of Defendant No.1-Petitioner to the effect that he had not filed any return acknowledging the partition, an application under Order XIII Rule 10 CPC was filed.
It is submitted by Mr. Bose, learned counsel for Opposite Party No.1 that the stage of filing an application under Order XIII Rule 10 CPC has not come. Since the Petitioner-Defendant No.1 relied upon such document and it is stated to be not in his possession, he should have called for the document prior to cross-examining the P.W.1. Since it has not been done, he can only file such an application before adducing evidence on his behalf.
To this submission, Mr. Pradhan, learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that he needs some preparation to reply to the same.
Put up this matter on 23rd November, 2023.
……………………………