CHANDI CHARAN KARMAKAR Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) - In Title Suit No. 339 of 1987 before the learned Munsif at Kalyani, District-Nadia, a question arose as to whether the respondent No. 4 herein is or is not a bargadar in respect of the disputed land. A reference was accordingly made by the learned Munsif under section 21(3) of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act (hereinafter shortened into Act) for deciding the said question. On the basis of the said reference, the J.L.R.O. concerned had submitted a report on 3.6.89. Subsequently, the Block Land and Land Reforms Officer, Haringhata, had also submitted another report on July 19, 1989, which was contrary to the earlier report submitted by the J.L.R.O. In the aforesaid circumstances, on writ application being filed by the writ petitioner, N. K. Mitra, J. by order dated 28.8.89, which was subsequently partly modified by order dated 14.2.90, had disposed of the same making it clear therein that the learned Munsif while disposing of the suit will take into consideration the report and/or decision arrived at by the J.L.R.O., Haringhata, Nadia, submitted on 3.6.89, and not the subsequent report dated 19.7.89 submitted by the Block Land and Land Reforms Officer in the matter, for the reasons recorded therein.

(2.) The respondent No. 4 had thereupon made an application for recalling the aforesaid orders dated 28.8.89 and 14.2.90 passed by N. K. Mitra, J. for the reasons stated therein. N. K. Mitra, J. by the impugned order dated 16.8.91, while refusing to recall the aforesaid orders, had made clear therein that if the applicant/respondent No. 4 prefers an appeal against the judgment and decree (which had been passed in the aforesaid Title Suit in the meanwhile) shall be at liberty to take all the points as taken in the application for recalling, and would also be permitted to use such an application as a additional evidence in that appeal and the lower appellate court in such a case will be at liberty to pass appropriate orders without being influenced and/or biased by any of the aforesaid orders dated 28.8.89 and 14.2.90.

(3.) Being aggrieved by the aforesaid impugned order dated 16.8.91, the writ petitioner has preferred the instant appeal.