AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
K.R. Mohapatra, J
This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.
The Petitioner in this CMP seeks to assail the order dated 24th June, 2023 (Annexure-4) passed by learned 1st Additional District Judge, Baripada in MJC No.29/123 of 2012-05, whereby an application under Order XI Rule 16 C.P.C. has been rejected. Amongst other grounds, learned 1st Additional District Judge, Baripada rejected the petition under Order XI Rule 16 C.P.C. stating that previous such application under Order XI Rule 14 C.P.C. was rejected.
It is submitted by Mr. Routray, learned counsel for the Petitioner that earlier application under Order 11 Rule 14 C.P.C. was filed for production of registered partnership deed by the Opposite Parties, which is in their possession. But the present application has been filed under the provision of Order XI Rule 16 C.P.C., which is a notice to the Opposite Parties to produce documents, i.e. registered partnership deed referred to in his pleading or affidavit. Although the Opposite Parties in their objection to the petition under Order XI Rule 16 C.P.C. and O.P.W.2 in his cross-examination has stated that the Opposite Party No.1 is not registered the partnership firm, but the Petitioner possess a photocopy of the registered partnership deed basing upon which financial assistance was advanced to the Opposite Party No.1. Since the original of the said document is available with the Opposite Parties, such an application was filed. Learned Appellate Court without appreciating the same rejected the petition. Hence, the CMP has been filed.
Upon hearing Mr. Routray, learned counsel for the Petitioner and on perusal of the petition, it appears that similar such application under Order XI Rule 14 to call for the registered deed of partnership from the Opposite Parties was rejected and the same remained unchallenged. Thus, notice to produce such document under Order XI Rule 16 C.P.C. in absence of any pleading or affidavit to the effect that the Opposite Party No.1 is a partnership firm is misconceived. Hence, this Court feels that learned 1st Additional District Judge, Baripada has committed no error in rejecting the same. Thus, I find no infirmity in the impugned order.
Accordingly, the impugned order to the extent of rejecting an application under Order XI Rule 16 C.P.C. is confirmed and the CMP is dismissed.
Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application.
……………………..