Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 179 (CAL)

Ram Asray Prasad Yadav v. Bijoy Kumar Yadav

2017-02-15

ASHIS KUMAR CHAKRABORTY

body2017
JUDGMENT : 1. This revisional application is directed against the Order No. 171 dated April 21, 2016 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Additional Court, District Purulia in Title Suit No. 74 of 1991. 2. By the impugned order, the learned Court below rejected the application filed by the petitioner, the defendant in the suit, for reexamination of the plaintiffs’ first witness. 3. The petitioner was directed to serve a copy of this application on the learned advocate representing the opposite parties before the learned Court below. From the affidavit-of-service filed on behalf of the petitioner it appears that the revisional application has been received by the learned advocate representing the opposite parties before the learned Court below. However, none appears on behalf of the opposite parties to oppose this application. Let, the said affidavit of- service filed on behalf of the petitioner be kept on record. 4. From the records it appears that after the conclusion of the evidence of the first witness the opposite parties-plaintiffs filed an application before the learned Court below for amendment of their plaint and the same was allowed by the learned Court below. After the opposite parties filed their amended plaint the petitioner filed his application for re-examination of the opposite parties’ first witness. By the impugned order, the learned Court below allowed the petitioner only to put certain questions to the opposite parties-plaintiffs’ first witness and refused the remaining questions being put the said witness holding that the petitioner cannot be allowed to cure any defect in cross-examining the witness of the opposite party no. 1 plaintiff. 5. I have considered the materials on record. When the petitioner prayed for re-examination of the witness of the opposite party plaintiff after they amended their plaint, the prayer of the petitioners to re-cross-examine the opposite party plaintiff’s witness could not be held to be aimed to cure any defect in his cross-examination. Therefore, I find that the learned Court below fell into an error of law to pass the impugned order allowing the petitioner only to put questions D to F to the opposite parties’ witness and refusing to put cross-examine the latter on the remaining questions. Therefore, I find that the learned Court below fell into an error of law to pass the impugned order allowing the petitioner only to put questions D to F to the opposite parties’ witness and refusing to put cross-examine the latter on the remaining questions. Accordingly, the impugned order dated April 21, 2016 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Additional Court, District Purulia in Title Suit No. 74 of 1991 is modified to the effect that the petitioner will also be entitled to put questions H to M mentioned in his application, for re-examination of the opposite parties-plaintiffs’ first witness. 6. With the above directions CO 72 of 2017 stands disposed of. However, there shall be no order as to costs. 7. Certified website copies of the order, if applied for, be urgently made available to the parties on usual undertaking.