Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

9. It is further submitted that PW1 (present appellant no. 2), in his cross-examination, pleaded ignorance in respect of the relevant factors. However, conspicuously, he admitted that Mr. Tapan Datta was the learned Advocate who had entered appearance on behalf of the appellants and conducted both the ejectment suit and the ejectment execution proceedings on behalf of the appellants as well as entered appearance in Title Suit No. 442 of 1989 on their behalf.

10. Thus, it is argued that the very premise of the application under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code was demolished by the 2025:CHC-AS:1200-DB appellants' witness as well as the order sheet of Title Suit No. 442 of 1989, which clearly goes on to show that the appellants had entered appearance and prayed for adjournments on several occasions in the suit, after being substituted in place of Panchu Saday Seth, the original defendant therein.

13. Rather, PW1 admitted in his cross-examination that Mr. Tapan Datta, Advocate, obtained signatures of the appellants on some printed papers and that the appellants "might have also executed Vakalatnama in his favour".

14. What clinches the issue against the appellants further is the admission of PW1 in his cross-examination that it is a fact that the learned Advocate Mr. Tapan Datta, who was conducting the ejectment suit and the ejectment execution proceedings on 2025:CHC-AS:1200-DB behalf of the appellants, and the said learned Advocate Mr. Tapan Datta, who entered appearance on behalf of the appellants in Title Suit No. 442 of 1989, was the same and identical person. Although learned counsel appearing for the appellants seeks to argue that the said answer might have been given to a cleverly framed suggestive question put on behalf of the plaintiffs/present respondents during the cross- examination of PW1, we are unable to agree with the same. Even if a suggestive question connecting the appearance of the self-same Mr. Tapan Datta in both the proceedings was put to the witness, it was always open to PW1 to simply deny such suggestion by stating that he did not know whether Mr. Tapan Datta who appeared in Title Suit No. 442 of 1989 and the one who appeared in the ejectment suit of the appellants was the self-same person. On the contrary, PW1 admitted that the advocate appearing in both the matters was the self- same person, thereby also admitting that the appellants were represented by the said Mr. Tapan Datta, Advocate in Title Suit No. 442 of 1989.