Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
CO/2637/2018 on 6 March, 2019
Author: Rajasekhar Mantha
Bench: Rajasekhar Mantha
1
06-03-2019
Sl. 480
pk C. O. No. 2637 of 2018
Mr. Basudev Rakshit,
...for the petitioner.
Mr. Prosenjit Mukherjee,
Ms. Madhurima Sarkar
... for the respondent no. 1.
The revisionist is aggrieved by order dated 24th July, 2018 passed in Title Suit No. 171 of 2014.
By the said order the court below rejected an application of the plaintiff claiming to be a tenant of the opposite party subsequently purchased from the landlord.
The plaintiff claims that he had surrendered the original tenancy after receiving a sum of Rs.60,000/- from the original landlord. He thereafter has filed an instant suit against the current purchaser claiming that the new purchaser has admittedly taken him as a tenant of the said property under an agreement.
In course of evidence the plaintiff tried to produce an unsigned copy of the purported agreement of tenancy which was disallowed by the court. The plaintiff subsequently after conclusion of evidence and in course of argument claims to have procured an agreement duly signed by the tenant and 2 sought to recall the defendant's witness to enable him to prove the said document.
At the very outset it is stated that the story of the plaintiff is absolutely incredible and unbelievable apart from the fact that the same has been vehemently denied by the opposite party in the court below.
The application under Order 18 Rule 17 is something that entitles a court at his discretion to call for witness if it so desirous in the interest of the suit. The court did not find any reason to call such witness and hence the same cannot be interefered by this Court.
In this circumstance, the revisional application shall stand dismissed.
No order as to costs.
Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties upon compliance of all formalities.
(Rajasekhar Mantha, J.)