LAKSHMI KANTA MANDAL Vs. MINOR ACHINTYA MANDAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revisional application has been directed against the Order No. 64 dated 12-11-1992, passed by the ld. Munsif, Rampurhat, in Title Suit No. 260 of 1992 disposing of five applications by the order under challenge.

(2.) To decide the controversy, a brief and important synopsis of the factual exposure of the case is an inevitability which paves the way for appreciation. It is needless to repeat, that the petitioner revisionist filed five applications, although the relief sought for was not identical in all the applications. Of the five applications, the petitioner-revisionist has assailed the order passed in connection with three petitions challenging the refusal to correct the figure of Exhibits, examination of Dr. Swapan Kr Nag and admission of almanac into evidence. In the perspective of the aforesaid claim made by the petitioner revisionist, I deal with the first controversy about the marking of the exhibits, the prayer of the petitioner-revisionist which, however, stood rejected by the ld. court below. Approaching to the claim of the petitioner revisionist, after hearing the ld. Counsel for the respective parties, the prayer at the thresh hold prima facie proves to be innocuous. The petitioner-revisionist in his modest claim has sought for correction of the figures or numbers in the Exhibits but never pressed into service the correction of the contents of those exhibits. The mere correction of the number of exhibits without anything more cannot foster any suspicion in the minds of the opposite parties that their rights have been snapped of. The contents of those exhibits do not stand for a moment to be trammelled by the petitioner-revisionist.

(3.) On hearing both the Counsel, I am of the view that the prayer for correction of the numbers in the Exhibits never verges on illegality. In the context of the fact, an obligation is laid on the Court to admit the documents into evidence in accordance with law with correct markings. Therefore, the order passed by the Id. court below refusing to correct the number of Exhibits for the time spent out is not acceptable nor does it admit of any consideration. The jurisdiction thus exercised suffers from illegality which is curable by the court of revision as the orders complained of it allowed to remain alive will inflict irreparable injury on the petitioner revisionist. Therefore, the prayer for correction of the Exhibits of the documents is upheld. But, I make it clear that the Id. trial court on the basis of the existing materials has not been given the direction to make correction of any other matters erupting from the documents excepting the correction of the figures. I have restrained myself from passing any remark about the contents of the documents. It is for the ld. court below to decide.