SANTI PRIYA PAL Vs. MIRA BISWAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revisional application under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure is directed against Order No. 59 dated 15th March, 1984, passed by the learned Munsif, Additional Third Court, Alipore, in Title Suit No. 110 of 1982. By the aforesaid impugned order, the learned Munsif allowed the prayer of the plaintiff opposite party to get the husband of the plaintiff to be recalled for further examination-in-chief as P.W.No.1. Rule has been issued on this application for revision and the application is heard as a contested application upon notice to the opposite party who had already lodged a caveat before this Court.

(2.) It appears that the said Title Suit No. 110 of 1982 was instituted by the plaintiff opposite party against the defendant petitioner for eviction under the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, inter alia on the ground of reasonable requirement of the plaintiff for her own use and occupation. It also appears that at a later stage, the defendant made an application for amendment of the written statement and such application was allowed. By the said amendment of the written statement, the defendant has contended that the plaintiff had given the defendant and assurance that the defendant would not be evicted from the disputed premises and as such the plaintiff was not entitled to seek for eviction of the defendant on the score of promissory estoppel. It appears that the husband of the plaintiff was examined as P.W.No. 1 and he were also cross-examined. Therefore, the defendant was also examined and the case was set down for hearing. At that stage, the plaintiff made an application before the learned Munsif for recalling the said P.W.No. 1 for examination-in-chief on the ground that through inadvertence two important questions could not be put to the said witness, namely, whether the plaintiff had any other reasonably suitable accommodation and whether or not the plaintiff had given any assurance to the defendant for not evicting him. The defendant put a petition of objection to the said prayer of the plaintiff and it was contended by the defendant that after the witnesses were examined and the evidences were closed, the plaintiff should not be permitted to recall the P.W.No. 1 for further examination for putting the said two questions on the score of omission of the plaintiff to put in evidence that the plaintiff did not have any other reasonably suitable accommodation and/or the plaintiff did not give any assurance to the defendant that he would not be evicted from the disputed premises. The defendant had acquired a valuable right in the suit because of such omission and the plaintiff should not permit to fill up the lacuna by recalling the P.W.No. 1 for further examination.

(3.) The learned Munsif, however, allowed the said application of the plaintiff to recall the P.W.No. 1. Unfortunately the learned Munsif did not give any reason as to why he was not inclined to accept the contentions raised by the defendant in the petition of objection and the application was allowed by the learned Munsif simply on the finding that he did not find any reason to disallow the petition for recalling the P.W. No.1 for examination-in-chief.