(1.) By this revision, the defendant/petitioner challenged the impugned order No. 63 dated 10.1.91 passed by the First Munsif, Sealdah in T.S. No. 593 of 1985 appointing an Advocate Commissioner to take signature of the plaintiff, Smt. Banalata Mukherjee, if required, on a plain paper in presence of both sides. In short the fact of the case is that the opposite patty purchased the suit property on 14.10.77 wherein the petitioner was a tenant and by a letter of requested the petitioner to attorn the tenancy in favour of the opposite party herein and to pay rent to her. Thereafter, the opposite party filed a suit for eviction of the petitioner herein from the suit premises and for khas possession of the same being premises No. 58/1/1D, Raja Dinendra Street, on the ground of reasonable requirement. In the said letter of attornment the extent and area of tenancy has been mentioned which includes roof and structure thereon. In the notice to suit and so also in the plaint, the said roof and structure thereon have been omitted from the extent of tenancy of the petitioner. The petitioner herein filed a written statement in the suit wherein he specified the area and extent of the tenancy. During cross-examination of PW1, the husband of the plaintiff was confronted with the letter of attornment and the signature thereon alleged to have been the signature of the plaintiff, to which be denied that signature is of his wife. The petitioner/defendant then made an application for examination of the plaintiff herself with the object of confirming the signature of the plaintiff in the said letter of attornment. In her written objection, to that petition the plaintiff took the plea that she is ill and is not in a position to appear before the court because of her indisposition. The learned Munsif by the impugned order ordered for examination of the plaintiff on commission, but in the concluding portion of that order he appointed a lady advocate as commissioner for taking signature of the plaintiff on a plain paper, if required, in presence of both the parties and directed the defendant to pay Rs. 200/- as commissioner's fee.
(2.) Appearing for the petitioner, Mr. Sankar Mitra, the learned Advocate, contended that the defendant/ opposite party by such order of the Learned Munsif has been deprived of the opportunity of cross- examining the plaintiff He further submitted that the order passed by the Learned Munsif is not within the scope and ambit of the provisions of Order 26 of the C.P.C.
(3.) The learned Advocate for the opposite party Mr. Gouri Sankar Das submitted that the order for obtaining the signature of the plaintiff on a plain paper is for the purpose of comparing the said signature with the signature of the petitioner on the attornment letter. He failed to satisfy this Court as to the provisions of law under which such order can be passed. .