Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Ranjana Dusadah @ Kumari Ranjana vs Smt. Basmati Devi & Anr on 2 March, 2015
Author: Harish Tandon
Bench: Harish Tandon
1
08 02.03.15 C.O. 627 of 2015
akd
Ranjana Dusadah @ Kumari Ranjana
Vs.
Smt. Basmati Devi & Anr.
--------
Mr. Amit Kumar Ghosh.
... for the petitioner.
Mr. C. P. Ghosh, Mr. K. Roy.
... for the opposite parties.
The plaintiff/petitioner filed a Title Suit No. 166 of 2010 before the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), 1st Court, Durgapur, Burdwan praying for declaration that she is the only legal heir of Gull Dusad since deceased and the claim of the defendant no. 1 is illegal, improper and not sustainable in law.
The said suit was thereafter posted at peremptory board, when the plaintiff/petitioner was directed to file affidavit as to examination in chief. The affidavit as to examination in chief of the first witness of the plaintiff was filed and the same was tendered into evidence. The first witness was cross-examined in part and thereafter at least three adjournments were taken by the plaintiff/petitioner, so that the cross- examination cannot be complete promptly.
After the Court allowed the adjournment by way of a last chance, on the next date the first witness of the plaintiff/petitioner was allowed to be cross- examined by the defendant no. 1/opposite party. It further appears that the second witness was also not 2 allowed to be cross-examined, as frequent adjournments were sought, which is discernable from the certified copy of the order sheets produced by the defendant no. 1/opposite party.
After completion of the cross-examination of the second witness, the plaintiff/petitioner again took time to adduce further evidence. The Court permitted her to bring further witness and it appears that at least three adjournments were sought; even after the Court recorded that such adjournment is granted as a last chance.
Ultimately the Court rejected the application for adjournment filed by the plaintiff/petitioner and closed the evidence. It further appears that the first witness of the defendants is on the witness box.
It is submitted by the plaintiff/petitioner that since the status of the persons are involved foreclosing the right of the party, to adduce evidence in support of the pleading filed before the Court shall vitally affect her interest in the subject matter of disputes.
Learned advocate for the defendant no. 1/opposite party submits that much latitude had been given by the Trial Court to the plaintiff/petitioner and it appears that she is dragging and prolonging the suit. Learned advocate further submits that the Trial Court closed the evidence of the plaintiff/petitioner, which cannot be interfered with in this revisional application.
Considering the subject disputes involved in the 3 suit, if the plaintiff/petitioner is denied of further opportunity to adduce evidence in support of her pleadings, it shall not only affect her status, but shall also effect the posterity to come.
The plaintiff/petitioner claims to be the only legal heir of the deceased, whereas the defendant no. 1 is claiming the status as a second wife. If she fails to produce the evidence, not only she will be deprived from the estate of the deceased, even if she succeeds in inheriting the same, such estate is capable of being enjoyed in all possible manner including the inheritance by he children.
This Court, therefore, feels that in such peculiar facts and circumstances of the case an opportunity is required to be given to the plaintiff/petitioner to adduce further evidence.
The order impugned in this revisional application is, therefore, set aside.
The plaintiff/petitioner is permitted to file the affidavit as to examination in chief of further witness within fortnight from date.
The time limit indicated hereinabove is mandatory and peremptory.
Considering the conduct of the plaintiff/petitioner in the suit and the device having been put in action to prolong and delay the disposal of the suit, this Court impose costs assessed at Rs.10,000/- to be paid to the leaned advocate-on- record of the defendant no. 1/opposite party in this Court within 10 days from date.
4In default of the payment of costs as assessed above, this order shall automatically stand recalled and the impugned order shall get revived.
If compliance is made by the plaintiff/petitioner to the extent of all directions as indicated above, the Trial Court is requested to dispose of the suit as expeditiously as possible without granting unnecessary adjournments to either of the parties and preferably within three months from the date of the communication of this order.
The revisional application is thus disposed of.
(HARISH TANDON, J.)