Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Tarun Kumar Dutta & Anr vs Raju Pal & Anr on 17 April, 2019
Author: Biswajit Basu
Bench: Biswajit Basu
Form No. J (2)
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Civil Revisional Jurisdiction
Appellate Side
Present:
The Hon'ble Justice Biswajit Basu
C.O. No. 19 Of 2019
Tarun Kumar Dutta & Anr.
versus
Raju Pal & Anr.
For Petitioners : Mr. Sourav Sen
Ms. Sayani Bhattacharya
For Opposite Parties : Mr. Partha Pratim Roy
Mr. Anirban Das
Heard on : 17.04.2019.
Judgment On : 17.04.2019.
Biswajit Basu, J.
The revisional application is at the instance of the defendants in a suit for partition. September 28, 2018 was the date fixed in the suit for cross- examination of P.W. 1 by the defendants. On the said date the defendants prayed for adjournment of the hearing of the suit on the ground that the conducting advocate of the defendants is ill and a medical certificate was filed in support of 2 the application for adjournment. The learned trial Judge closed the evidence of P.W. 1 after rejecting the said application for adjournment.
Mr. Sen, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that the application for adjournment was rejected by the learned trial Judge on the ground that the medical certificate filed by the defendants in support of the said application was not the medical certificate regarding the illness of defendant by completely overlooking that application for adjournment was filed on the ground of illness of the learned advocate of the defendants and that is why a medical certificate was filed regarding the illness of the said learned advocate.
On perusal of the order impugned it appears that the learned trial Judge has dismissed the application for adjournment holding that the medical prescription filed with the said application is not belonging to the defendants. On perusal of the application for adjournment and the medical certificate annexed thereto it appears that the adjournment was sought for on the ground of illness of the learned conducting advocate for the defendants and the medical certificate annexed to the said application was regarding the illness of the said learned advocate.
Therefore, the learned trial Judge is not justified in dismissing the said application for adjournment on the ground that the medical certificate annexed to the said application for adjournment is not in relation to the illness of the defendants.
3
The order impugned is therefore set aside. C.O. No. 19 of 2019 is allowed by granting liberty to the petitioners to cross-examine the P.W. 1 on the next date fixed in the suit.
This Court is informed by the learned counsel for the parties that May 2, 2019 is the next date fixed for hearing of the suit. The defendants shall be entitled to cross-examine the P.W. 1 on the said date for once only.
It is made clear, if the defendants fail to avail the opportunity to cross-examined the P.W. 1 on the said date, no further opportunity shall be afforded to them for the said purpose.
With the above observation, C.O. No. 19 of 2019 is disposed of. Urgent photostat certified copy of this Judgment, if applied for, be given to the parties on usual undertakings.
(Biswajit Basu, J.) SK