Calcutta High Court
Narendra Kumar Berlia vs Om Prakash Berlia & Ors on 22 March, 2021
Author: Moushumi Bhattacharya
Bench: Moushumi Bhattacharya
OD-16
ORDER SHEET
IA No. GA/8/2021
In
CS/79/2011
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction
ORIGINAL SIDE
NARENDRA KUMAR BERLIA
Versus
OM PRAKASH BERLIA & ORS.
BEFORE :
The Hon'ble JUSTICE MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA
Date : 22nd March, 2021 [Via video conference] Appearance:
Mr. Arif Ali, Adv.
Mr. Ratul Das, Adv.
Mr. Arnab Sardar, Adv.
... for the plaintiff Mr. Sakya Sen, Adv.
Mrs. H. Chakraborty, Adv.
Mr. S.R. Kakrania, Adv.
Mr. Sanjeeb Seni, Adv.
Mr. Tanuj Kakrania, Adv.
Mr. Aviroop Mitra, Adv.
... for the defendant nos.1 & 2 Mr. Rohit Banerjee, Adv.
Ms. Debasmita Adhikari, Adv.
... for the defendant nos.3, 5 & 16 Ms. Iti Dutta, Adv.
... for the defendant no.4 Mr. S. Huda, Adv.
Mr. Varun Kedia, Adv.
... for the defendant no.6 Mr. Chayan Gupta, Adv.
Mr. A.K. Dey, Adv.
... for the defendant nos. 7 & 14 2 The Court : This is an application for appointment of a Commissioner for examining the plaintiff's second witness, one Mr. Shankar Lal Kandoi. The request of learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff is that the commission also be conducted at the residence of the plaintiff's second witness. The reason cited is that the second witness is 79 years of age and has recently had a surgery.
The prayer in the application is opposed by learned counsel appearing for the defendant no.1 who submits that the present situation caused by the pandemic is not conducive to the examination being conducted in the residence of the second witness of the plaintiff. It is also submitted that the defendant no.1 lives in Mumbai which would make it difficult for the evidence to be conducted with immediate effect having regard to the fact that the present state of affairs in Maharashtra. Diverse views are expressed on behalf of the other defendants, some of who are ready for resumption of evidence in the residence of the second witness while others prefer a neutral venue.
Upon hearing learned counsel and more important upon considering that the examination-in-chief of the plaintiff's second witness concluded sometime in November, 2019 and the cross-examination commenced in January, 2020 and was last done in February, 2020, this Court is not inclined to put the evidence of the second witness of the plaintiff in abeyance for an indefinite period of time. Although the pandemic has made it difficult to resume normal life, matters in this court are being heard on a regular basis and with the same intensity as of March, 2020 before the effect of the pandemic was felt in earnest. This Court is also of the view that the evidence cannot be taken on the virtual 3 mode. Since parties are not agreeable to witness action in the residence of the witness no.2, the evidence will be conducted in court.
In view of the above, GA 8 of 2021 is disposed of with direction on the plaintiff's second witness to appear before this Court on 23rd April, 2021 having regard to the impending Assembly Elections in the State and also that the defendant no.1 needs sufficient time to travel, if necessary, for the cross- examination.
List CS No.79 of 2011 on 23rd April, 2021 for resuming the cross- examination of the plaintiff's second witness.
The Affidavit-in-opposition filed on behalf of the defendant nos.1 and 2 is taken on record.
(MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA, J.) RS