DEEPA CHAKRABORTY Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this petition, the petitioner has assailed the order dated 19th May 2008 passed by learned Additional District Judge whereby an application for appointment of Local Commissioner to examine the witness at Kolkata was dismissed and the learned trial court gave only one more opportunity to the petitioner to produce the attesting witness for cross examination.

(2.) THE petitioner had already examined the attesting witness of Will in this petition when one more respondent Ms. Sandhya Ganguly was allowed to be a party and she filed objections and also made a prayer for cross examination of the witness already examined. This prayer was rejected by the learned trial court as well as by this Court. Against this order, the added defendant Smt. Sandhya Ganguly had approached the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court passed the following order:

(3.) AFTER passing of the abovesaid order, Smt. Sandhya Ganguly deposited the air fare before the trial court within the time provided by the Supreme court, for cross examination of this witness. However, despite deposit of the air fare, the witness was not produced in the Court by the petitioner and the petitioner herself also did not appear for her cross examination. When the matter was fixed on 19th May 2008 before the trial court, an application was made by the petitioner for examination of attesting witness PW-2 on commission. PW-2 is not an old person but a young person in his 40's. The respondent took an objection that since the petitioner had examined only one attesting witness, the respondent would like to examine this witness in presence of the Court. The respondent had already deposited the air fare in terms of the orders of the supreme Court. Option was given to the respondent either to examine witness on commission at her expense or to deposit the requisite air fare require for travel of the witness to Delhi. Since the respondent has deposited the air fare, the respondent would like to examine this witness only in the Court instead of examining this witness in Kolkata on commission. The learned trial court, after considering the arguments of both sides considered that the witness should be examined in the Court and gave a further opportunity to the petitioner to bring the witness to the court. Against this order, the petitioner has approached this court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.