KALYANI BORKOTAKY Vs. SRI KAMAKHYA BORTHAKUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order dated 10.6.2009 passed by the learned Munsiff No.1, Tinsukia in Misc.(J) Case No.56/09, arising out of the Title Suit No.30/06, whereby the petition under Section 151 CPC, filed by the petitioner-plaintiff, praying for allowing to adduce rebuttal evidence, after closing of the evidence of defendants' witness, in the counterclaim, was rejected.

(2.) Heard Mr. S. Banik, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-plaintiff (hereinafter 'plaintiff') and Mr. J. Roy, learned counsel appearing for the opposite partiesdefendants(hereinafter 'defendants'.

(3.) The plaintiff is the owner of registered Tata Indica DLS Vehicle bearing Registration No.AS-23C-0004. He purchased the vehicle from defendant No.2, who is the authorized dealer of Tata Motors. After the purchase, the vehicle met with an accident on 6.10.2005, in which the plaintiff and her daughter were seriously injured. The vehicle in question was brought to the garage of the defendant No.2, for repairing and it was indicated to the plaintiff by the defendants that the cost of the repairing would be approximately Rs.40,000/-. The vehicle was finally delivered to the plaintiff after repairing, in the 2 nd week of January, 2006. However, the plaintiff was given a bill amounting to Rs.1,31,814/-, for repairing of the vehicle. The plaintiff questioned the bill and then the defendants tried to take over possession of the said vehicle by unlawful means. Having been compelled by the circumstances, the plaintiff filed the Title Suit No.30/06, in the Court of learned Munsiff No.1, Tinsukia against the defendants, praying for the following relief(s)