LALLUKHUM FIMATE Vs. CHALTONLIEN AMO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition has been filed by the petitioner under Order 18, Rule 17 read with Section 151 C.P.C. praying to recall P.W.2 alleging that P.W.2 has made two different versions/statements in respect to his signature in his examination in chief filed in form of an affidavit and there are contradictions in his own statement. Therefore, to get it his contradictory statements clarified, P.W. No.2 has to be recalled.

(2.) The contesting first respondent filed objection stating that the statement given on oath before this Court by the P.W.2 are clear cut statement and does not need any clarification and the petitioner is trying to force P.W.2 to change the statement given by him by recalling him therein to favour the petitioner, which is not permitted in the eye of law.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that while P.W.2 was examined in chief on 09.12.2020, he identified his signature on the chief-examination affirmed on 04.11.2019, however, during cross-examination of the first respondent dated 18.1.2021, when the learned counsel for the first respondent questioned the signature found at page 4 of his chief-examination, P.W.2 stated that the signature is not his signature and that if a clarification is not made by P.W.2, the aforesaid statements will bring about in the mind of this Court in the process of delivering justice.