SUBRATA BANERJEE Vs. PANNALAL PAL & ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revisional application is directed against an order dated Sept. 17, 2015 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Third Court, Serampore, Hooghly in Title Suit No. 135 of 1996 by which an application under Order 18, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure filed by the plaintiff is rejected.

(2.) The evidence of PW-1 had commenced on March 20, 2007 and concluded on Feb. 13, 2009. Thereafter, the evidence of the defendants' witnesses was concluded. The suit was fixed for argument on Feb. 1, 2013 and the said suit is at the argument stage. At the fag end of the trial and after arguments have commenced, an application filed on Sept. 3, 2015 for recalling of PW-1 on a plea that the plaintiff would be required to produce some documents which are in possession of the plaintiff but at the time of adducing evidence the plaintiff could not file the same before the Trial Court since those documents were misplaced from the custody of the plaintiff. It is curious to note that after six years those documents suddenly surfaced and the plaintiff felt it necessary to produce such documents for proving the case of the plaintiff.

(3.) Neither the nature of the documents nor any explanation was offered for not being able to disclose those documents during the aforesaid period. It took six long years for the plaintiff to come out with an application, which is completely vague and bereft of particulars inasmuch as after an inordinate delay. Still then the plaintiff would invite this Court to exercise its high prerogative power and would cite decision of the Honourable Supreme Court rendered in connection with Order 18, Rule 17 and Sec. 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure to persuade this Court to allow the plaintiff to lead evidence on such undisclosed documents.