Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Sri Biswanath Kundu & Anr vs Arambag Bidyut Atheletic Club on 15 September, 2014
Author: Sanjib Banerjee
Bench: Sanjib Banerjee
1 3 15.9.2014
C.O. 3085 of 2014 gd Sri Biswanath Kundu & Anr.
Vs. Arambag Bidyut Atheletic Club Mr. Debjit Mukherjee ..for the Petitioners Mr. Dilip Kumar Kundu Ms. S. Sultana ..for the Opposite Party The plaintiffs in a suit for recovery of possession complain of an order by which a belated application for recalling one of the plaintiffs' witnesses for proving a document that was not available with the plaintiffs earlier, has been rejected.
The suit is against a club which claims to be in possession of a part of the property purchased by the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs say that it was subsequent to their evidence being closed that the plaintiffs obtained a copy of the deed by which the vendors of the plaintiffs purchased the property. The application was made for recalling one of the plaintiffs' witnesses at the time when evidence on the defendant's side had also been closed. The trial court thought it was improper at that stage to allow any witness on the plaintiffs' side to be recalled.
Though the order impugned gives cogent grounds as to why the application was rejected, yet, the rejection may result in multiplicity of proceedings as it 2 is the plaintiffs' case that the relevant document was not available with the plaintiffs at the time that the plaintiffs' witnesses were examined.
Since the object of the exercise undertaken by the court is to determine the real controversies between the parties, the trial court may have used its discretion to allow the document to be brought on record upon compensating the defendant adequately by costs, particularly in the light of the assertion that the document was not available earlier.
C.O. 3085 of 2014 is disposed of by setting aside the order impugned dated August 20, 2014 and by allowing the applications filed by the plaintiffs for recalling their first witness and for producing the relevant document and having the same exhibited by such witness. However, this order is subject to the plaintiffs paying costs assessed at Rs.10,000/- to the defendant within a fortnight from date.
There will be no further order as to costs. Urgent certified website copies of this order, if applied for, be made available to the parties upon compliance of the requisite formalities.
(Sanjib Banerjee, J.) 3