MARY DUTTA Vs. PARESH CHANDRA NATH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order dated 17.9.2008, passed by learned Civil Judge, 1st Court (Senior Division), Barrasat in Title Suit No. 253 of 2001. From the materials on record it could be gathered that the learned trial Judge while disposing of the plaintiffs' application for recalling P.W. 2 for reexamination purpose was pleased to reject the said application contending interalia that the duty of the Court is not to help anyone nor the act of the Court willprejudice any of the parties.

(2.) Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the impugned order the plaintiff has come up before this Court with the prayer for setting aside the said order and for obtaining an opportunity to recall and re-examine P.W. 2. The point for consideration is whether the order impugned does suffer from any impropriety or the same needs any interference by this Court. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner at the very outset of his argument drew this Court's attention to the materials on record including the impugned order and emphatically argued that the plaintiff sought for Court's permission to recall and re-examine P.W. 2 with a view to removing the ambiguity or discrepancy arising between the original deed ext. 'A' and the certified copy thereof. Referring to the materials on record including the contents of the impugned order it has been urged that the finding arrived at by the learned Court below is not only prejudicial to his client, but also the same causes miscarriage of justice and accordingly the order impugned needs interference by this Court. In support of his contention he has relied upon a decision reported in (Vadiraj Naggappa Vernekar (dead) V. Sharadchandra Prabhakar Gogate, 2009 4 SCC 410) and strongly contended that in view of the principles laid down in the ruling, P.W. 2 ought to have been allowed to be recalled and re-examined for the sake of removing ambiguity. In my considered view this ruling is not applicable in this case as because the original sale deed has been produced and marked as ext. 'A' in the Court below.

(3.) On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the O.Ps. having drawn this Court's attention to the materials on record including the copy of the plaint as also the petition for recalling and re-examining P.W. 2 and strongly submitted that the learned Court below while passing the impugned order committed no mistake or impropriety inasmuch as the plaintiff by filing the application for recalling the P.W. 2 at the stage of argument has created prejudice and harassment to his clients. In fine, learned counsel for the O.Ps. emphatically submitted that it is a fit case wherein the order impugned needs no interference by this Court.