SRI SAMIR RANJAN BARMAN Vs. SRI RANABIR PAUL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY means of this petition, the petitioner who is the plaintiff in the trial Court has challenged the order dated 06.10.2007 whereby the learned trial Court has rejected two applications filed by the plaintiff one under Order XVI, Rule 1(3) for seeking permission to call two more witnesses and another under Order XVI, Rule 1(2) of the CPC praying that summons be issued to the Editor/publisher of the Tripura Darpan.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated the facts of the case are that the plaintiff instituted a suit on 15.09.2005 claiming damages of rupees one crore on account of alleged defamatory statements made against the plaintiff by the defendants. Issues in the suit were framed on 17.04.2006 and the case fixed for filing "affidavit -in -chief"(sic). It appears that the intention of the Court was to direct the plaintiff and his witnesses to submit their evidence (examination -in -chief) by affidavit in terms of Order XVIII, Rule 4 of the CPC. The date given was 12th May, 2006 and on this date a request was made by the counsel for the plaintiff seeking further time. This request was allowed and the matter was adjourned to 03.06.2006. On this date again a request was made. It would however be pertinent to mention that on this date the regular Presiding Officer was not holding Court. The matter was then listed on 01.07.2006 when again a request was made for filing an affidavit -in -chief. Even on this date the regular Presiding Officer had not been posted. On 28.07.2006 both sides filed applications seeking further time and the matter was adjourned to 06.09.2006. Again on 06.09.2006 both the parties sought adjournment and the matter was adjourned to 02.11.2006. On this date again application for adjournment was filed by both sides and the learned Court granted last opportunity to the plaintiff. On the next date i.e. 07.12.2006 the plaintiff again prayed for an adjournment. The Court noted that various opportunities had been granted but no affidavit had been filed and adjourned the matter to 12.02.2007. On 12.02.2007 again a request was made and the matter was adjourned to 28.02.2007 when the affidavits were filed by two witnesses on behalf of the plaintiff and three witnesses on behalf of the defendants. Both the petitions were filed on the same date.

(3.) I do not find any jurisdictional error in the order of the learned Court below. The record of the case clearly shows that the petitioner had taken large number of dates to file his evidence. It may be true that on two or three occasions regular Presiding Officer was not there but that did not prevent the plaintiff from filing his affidavit. Cross examination of the witnesses may not be possible when the regular Presiding Officer is not present but documents can definitely be filed even before the Presiding Officer who was conducting the matter in the absence of the regular Presiding Officer.