JUDGMENT Jay Sengupta, J. - This is an application challenging an order dated 01.02.2020 passed by the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, 7th First Track Court, Alipore, South 24 Paganas, whereby the learned trial court was pleased to allow the petition under Section 311 of the Code filed on behalf of the opposite party no.2/defacto complainant. 2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits as follows. The application under Section 311 of the Code was filed only to fill up lacuna in this case. The mother of the victim was never made a witness in this case. She was not even examined during investigation. In fact, in the cross-examination of the dafacto complainant/P.W.2 it was categorically mentioned that the defacto complainant had no relation with her mother and other family members. As such, the learned trial court erred in allowing the application under Section 311 of the Code to examine the informant''s mother as a witness. 3. I have heard the submissions of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and have perused the revision petition. 4. It appears from the impugned order as well as the examination-inchief of P.W.2 that on 19.05.2018 the defacto complainant had clearly deposed before the learned trial court that her mother tried to communicate the matter with the family of the accused and went to his house for conversation. Therefore, the mother of the victim is not a stranger to the proceeding. As such, it cannot be said that she was being introduced for the first time only to fill up some lacuna. 5. In view of the above, I do not find any illegality in the impugned order. 6. Accordingly, the revisional application is dismissed. 7. There shall, however, be no order as to costs. 8. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order may be supplied to the parties expeditiously, if applied for.