IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CMP No.1073 of 2025 Subrat Kumar Batu @ Badu …. Petitioner Mr. J.Pal, Advocate -versus- Ainthi Badu & Ors. …. Opposite Parties CORAM: SHRI JUSTICE B. P. ROUTRAY ORDER 08.08.2025 Order No. 01. 1. Heard Mr. Pal, learned counsel for the Petitioner. 2. Mr. S.Pattanaik, learned counsel has entered appearance for Opposite Party No.1. 3. Present CMP is directed against order dated 4th July 2025 of the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Bhubaneswar passed in T.S. No. 230 of 1996, wherein the prayer of the Defendant Nos. 3(a) to 10 to adduce further evidence by recalling D.W.2 has been refused. 4. It is submitted on behalf of the Petitioners, who are Defendant Nos. 3 (a) to 10, that for the delay caused in getting those documents under the RTI Act the same could not be produced at the time of examination of D.W.2 and those documents being very vital for adjudication of the dispute should be permitted to be exhibited. Digitally Signed Signed by: SANGRAM DAS Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 08-Aug-2025 16:44:17 Signature Not Verified 5. Mr. Pattanaik, learned counsel for Opposite Party No.1 on the other hand submits that the Defendants are playing dilatory tactics and did not produce such documents, if any, on their part while examining D.W.2 and now by seeking recall of said D.W.2 they want to consume further time. 6. Present suit is with regard to declaratory right in respect of Sevapuja of Lord Lingaraj and other consequential reliefs. Here the documents sought to be adduced in evidence are not disputed as irrelevant to the dispute but the prayer has been denied on the ground that the same would delay the process of adjudication of the suit. When the Defendants claimed those documents are relevant for deciding the dispute, specifically without any objection from the side of plaintiff on the point of relevancy of the documents, it is felt apposite to allow the prayer of the Defendants permitting them to adduce those documents. As such, the prayer of the Defendants is allowed. 7. In the result, the CMP is allowed with a direction to the learned Trial Court to permit Defendants No. 3 (a) to 10 to adduce those documents by recalling D.W.2, in accordance with law, within a specified period to be fixed by the trial court and both parties are directed to co-operate the Trial Court to avoid any delay in disposal of the suit. ( B.P. Routray) Judge S.Das