BHOLANATH BURMAN Vs. SUNIL DUTTA @ CHRISTOPHER ZEORGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revisional application is arising out of an order passed in connection with the petition filed by the opposite parties under Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code for expunging the exhibit no.1 being the alleged agreements dated 26th May, 2002 and for recalling of the order of 2nd August, 2011 by which the plaintiffs were permitted to exhibit the said document. The ground for expunging the said exhibit is that notwithstanding an order dated 2nd April, 2007 by which the said document was impounded and the plaintiffs were directed to deposit the maximum stamp duty and penalty, the plaintiffs without complying with the said direction and without even brought to the notice of the learned trial Judge that on an earlier occasion such document was directed to be impounded, the said document was taken on record and marked as an exhibit by taking advantage of the absence of the defendant.

(2.) THE said proceeding was preceded by an application filed by the plaintiff for recalling of witness. The petition apparently would appear to be very innocuous and contains only three paragraphs which states that the petitioners earlier had filed few documents during evidence but due to inadvertence, those documents were not marked as exhibits and, accordingly, the plaintiffs might be permitted to recall its witness for the purpose of marking the said documents as exhibits. The said application was filed on 11th April, 2011.

(3.) THE application for recalling of witness for the purpose of marking document as exhibits is silent about the order dated 2nd April, 2007 and it gives an impression that the plaintiffs for the purpose of marking other documents as exhibits require recalling of witness. It is a fact that the order of 2nd April, 2007 was not brought to the attention of the learned trial Judge when the said document was marked as an exhibit at the instance of the plaintiffs and in absence of the defendants. In fact, the defendant prayed for adjournment on the ground that the defendant would prefer a revision against the order dated 25th July, 2011, by which the witness was allowed to be recalled and, accordingly, the defendant did not participate in the said proceeding when the said document was marked as an exhibit.