1 3
Page of
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
_A_G_A_R_T_A_L_A_
CRP No.51 of 2024
Sri Manik Lal Ghosh
...... Petitioner(s)
V E R S U S
Sri Pradyot Choudhury
Respondent(s)
..….
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Somik Deb, Sr. Advocate,
Mr. Rahul Debbarma, Advocate.
For Respondent(s) : None.
HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. APARESH KUMAR SINGH
=O=R=D=E=R=
28/06/2024
Heard Mr. Somik Deb, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr.
Rahul Debbarma, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner.
By virtue of an indulgence granted by this Court in CRP No.19
of 2024 dated 15.03.2024 the defendant/petitioner was given one
opportunity to appear physically before the learned trial Court on the next
date in order to be cross-examined in accordance with law subject to suitable
cost. It was also made clear that no further time may be granted. On the
relevant date i.e. 12.04.2024 the defendant produced witness, namely, Manik
Lal Ghosh (DW-1) who was examined, cross-examined and discharged. The
learned Court also allowed cost of Rs.2,000/- upon the defendant to be paid
to the plaintiff. Learned counsel for the defendant had further made an
application under Order VIII Rule 1-A(3) of CPC for seeking leave of the
Court for acceptance of two number of original documents at the stage of
evidence. On objection made by the plaintiff and after consideration of the
2 3
Page of
submission of the parties the prayer was rejected as the application was
neither verified nor supported by affidavit. Thereafter, examination of
defendant witness was closed on the verbal submission of learned counsel
for the defendant. The defendant-petitioner has once again approached this
Court on denial of leave to adduce two original documents at the stage of
evidence in terms of Order VIII Rule 1-A(3) of CPC.
Mr. Somik Deb, learned senior counsel for the petitioner has
sought to impress upon the Court that such a recourse was not necessary as
these two documents were already referred to in the list of documents along
with Xerox copies and the same could have been adduced during
examination of DW-1 for being exhibited. Learned trial Court also fell in
error in rejecting the same. He has referred to the provisions of Order VIII
Rule 1-A and Order XIII of CPC as well. He prays that one more indulgence
may be granted to the defendant to adduce those two documents which are
one GD Entry dated 26.07.2015 and one original school register.
This Court, however, upon consideration of submission of
learned counsel for the petitioner is not inclined to grant any further
indulgence to the defendant. On the previous occasion despite closure of
evidence the defendant was allowed an opportunity to be examined and
cross-examined as the argument of the case had not commenced. On the
subsequent date, he was cross-examined and discharged and thereafter the
stage of defendant witnesses was closed on the submission of learned
counsel for the defendant as well. It would not be proper to allow recall of
such witness at this stage once again as it would not be in consonance with
3 3
Page of
the interest of justice, more so, when the defendant witness stage has already
been closed on the submission of learned counsel for the defendant himself.
Therefore, this Court does not find any reason to interfere in the
matter. Accordingly, the instant civil revision petition is dismissed.
Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.
(APARESH KUMAR SINGH) CJ
Digitally signed by DIPESH DEB
DIPESH DEB
Date: 2024.07.04 14:36:47
+05'30'