SOMENATH DAS Vs. SOMNATH DAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order being No. 24 dated May 17th, 2012 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kalna in Title Suit NO. 67 of 2008. The opposite party Sri. Somnath Das as plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of money and interest along with compensation against the present petitioners. The said suit has been registered as Title Suit No. 67 of 2008 and pending before the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kalna, District - Burdwan. The plaintiff Somnath Das was examined and cross-examined in full. The evidence of P.W. 1 Somnath Das was subsequently closed and he was discharged. At this stage the petitioners/defendants filed a petition praying for recall of P.W. 1 Somnath Das to put some important questions to the said witness which the learned Advocate for the defendants/petitioners failed to put him at the time of cross-examination. The proposed questions relates to whether P.W. 1 used to hold requisite money lending licence or he may use to run money lending business or to show the same in the return filed by him before Income Tax Authorities. Thus, the case of the petitioners that for the purpose of proving the defence case the aforesaid questions ought to have been asked the time of cross-examination of P.W. 1 but due to the inadvertent mistake on the part of the learned lawyer engaged on behalf of the petitioners the questions were not put to P.W. 1. As such one application was filed for passing necessary order to recall P.W. 1 for putting those questions to elicit the truth.

(2.) The learned Judge by an order being No. 24 dated 17th May, 2012 was pleased to reject the said prayer of the petitioners.

(3.) Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the order impugned the present revisional application has been preferred on the ground that the learned Trial Judge in exercise of its jurisdiction acted illegally and with material irregularity by rejecting the petitioner's prayer for recalling of P.W. 1. Further that learned Trial Court illegally hold that the proposed questions for recall do not come within the permissible limits of the provisions of Section 165 of Indian Evidence Act or Order 18 Rule 17 of the Civil Procedure Code.