HEMANTA KUMAR BASU Vs. SUDARSAN SAHOO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) DEFENDANT in a pending suit is the Petitioner in this civil revision. The order permitting the Plaintiff to file some documents in the midst of the trial and to recall the Plaintiff as witness to prove the documents is assailed in this case.

(2.) THE suit is one for damages. Plaintiff claims that on account of a letter issued by the Defendant his reputation has been greatly affected. He claims that as a reputed craftsman, he had extensive travel to many parts of the World and had also received National Award on account of his superior craftsmanship. In spite of it the Defendant has damaged his reputation by addressing a letter. In the written statement, Defendant denied the allegations including the issue of the letter.

(3.) AFTER recording the evidence of P.W. 2 on 23 -6 -1986, the evidence on the side of the Plaintiff was closed and the case was posted to the next day for further hearing, when Plaintiff filed two petitions one praying to accept some of the documents which P.W. 2 stated to produce and to recall P.W. 2 for proving those documents and the other for accepting some public documents. In the petition for recalling P.W. 2, it was stated that for proving the documents filed, the witness is to be recalled. On the said petition, the suit was adjourned to 25 -6 -1986 to give opportunity to the Defendant to file objection. In his objection, the Defendant asserted that no sufficient good cause is shown for withholding or filing of the said documents in time and it is nothing but to fill up the lacuna adduced on behalf of the Plaintiff. On consideration of the petition and the objection, the trial court found that in view of the cross -examination of P.W. 2, it is desirable to allow the petition though the same has been filed at a belated stage. He allowed the petition subjected to payment of costs. On 26 -6 -1986, the learned Counsel for the Defendant received the costs subject to the condition that the Defendant would go in revision against the order. Thus, the revision is before this Court.