SHYAMAPADA NEOGY Vs. ASOKE KR BISWAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ON April 17, 1958, Asoke Kumar biswas and two others instituted a suit in the second court of the munsif at sealdah for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants, the Neogis, from raising a wall on two specified plots which, it was said, would close their way for egress and ingress.

(2.) IT is hardly necessary to go through the vicissitudes through which the suit passed. Suffice it to record that it was brought to trial on August 21, 1962, when the case was opened and one witness for the plaintiffs examined in part, only to be postponed for further hearing till September 3, 1962. That day too it was heard in part and ultimately adjourn to December 10, 1962. That day again it was heard in part and ultimately adjourned to January 22, 1963. In between several other postponements were had. From Jan. 22, 1963 when some evidence was recorded the hearing was adjourned over again to february 19, 1963 when the examination of one witness whose evidence was taken in part earlier was concluded and the plaintiff Asoke Kumar Biswas, the fifth witness was examined in full. Some documents were received in evidence and marked. And the plaintiffs' ease was closed. Postponements again to March 7, 1963, from March 7, 1963 to march 8, 1963, from March 8, 1963 to March 18, 1963, from march 18, 1963 to March 21, 1963 and from March 21, 1963 to April 4, 1963 when the defendants' evidence was closed. April 26, 1963 was then set down for the hearing of arguments. That day however arguments were not heard. The plaintiffs prayed for Asoke Kumar biswas, himself a plaintiff, and examined as the fifth witness of the plaintiffs, being recalled for further evidence. Why ? Because, as the plaintiffs' petition dated april 26, 1963 avers, when he was examined, "the claim has nut been specifically and particularly explained and clarified in that light (that is, in the light of the easement claimed)and his deposition is vague on the point," or still better, as the munsif recorded in his order No. 117 dated June 21, 1963 because Asoke Kumar Biswas did not state in his evidence had on February 19, 1963 that they were enjoying the disputed passage for 20 years openly, peaceably, uninterruptedly and as of right. After three more adjournments, (in which the learned munsif seems to revel), on June 17, 1963 he heard such a petition for recalling Asoke for further evidence and by his order No. 117 dated June 21, 1963 allowed the prayer.

(3.) THE Neogis, the defendants, have now come up to this court in revision and obtained the Rule.