BASANTI SARKAR Vs. SUDHA DEY & ANR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This disgruntled plaintiff/petitioner has challenged the order dated 19.06.2013 passed by a Learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) Ranaghat in connection with Title Appeal Bearing No. 12/2010, which emanates from the Title Suit No. 163 of 2004.

(2.) According to the petitioner/plaintiff Learned Court below as well as First Appellate Court misconstrued the provision of law and thus arrived at a wrong conclusion. In the Title Suit Bearing No. 163/2004 this petitioner/plaintiff has prayed for a decree in favour of herself as the first wife of deceased Tapan Kumar Sarkar and a decree that no marriage took place between Sudha Dey (defendant/respondent) with Tapan Kumar Sarkar since deceased. She had also prayed for temporary and permanent injunction restraining the defendant/opposite party from claiming herself as the first wife of Tapan Kunar Sarkar. In the Trial Court her claim was dismissed after recording evidence of both parties. She prayed for an appeal before the Learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) Ranaghat and at the same time prayed for adducing additional evidence under Order 41 Rule 27 of Code of Civil Procedure. Learned First Appellate Court after hearing both sides had rejected the said order and being aggrieved at it the petitioner has come before this forum.

(3.) At the time of hearing Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner/plaintiff has submitted that she wanted to adduce vital evidence and documents which were the live-wire of the suit. But her such prayer was rejected by the Learned First Appellate Court. Learned Counsel categorically submitted that those documents were required to be proved for effective adjudication of the dispute.