BANTI DUARAH Vs. DEBOJIT BARUAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. P. K. R. Choudhury, the learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. F. K. R. Ahmed, the learned counsel for the respondents.

(2.) Order dated 09.02.2017 passed in Misc. (J) Case No.168/2016 arising out of Money Suit No.18/2012 by the learned Civil Judge, Nagaon is under challenge in this revision petition. The present petitioner is the plaintiff in the said Money Suit No.18/2012 filed against the present respondent. The suit is for damages against malicious prosecution initiated by defendant/ respondent. While filing the plaint in the suit the present petitioner filed the list of documents which includes one Regret Letter of Shri Debajit Baruah, the defendant/ respondent. At the stage of evidence of the plaintiff side, the present plaintiff/petitioner filed an application under Order XVI Rule 6 of the CPC for issuing summons to the Principal, Hojai College to produce the said Regret Letter of Shri Debajit Baruah addressed to the Principal on 28.01.2011. The learned trial court granted leave to take steps by the plaintiff to summon to produce the said Regret Letter dated 22.06.2011. In compliance of the said summons, the Principal, Hojai College vide letter dated 08.01.2014 produced the photocopy of the said Regret Letter. On the date fixed for cross-examination of the plaintiff/petitioner as PW-1 the said Regret Letter dated 28.01.2011 was marked as Ext-11. However, the court disallowed the said exhibit on the ground that the same was a photocopy. After the cross-examination of the plaintiffs' witnesses, the plaintiff/petitioner side desired to adduce evidence of the Principal, Hojai College in order to prove the said Regret Letter which was exhibited as Ext-11 but disallowed by the Court. The said petition was numbered as 2427/2016 and the same was registered as Misc.(J) Case No.168/2016. The learned trial court disallowed the said leave sought for by the plaintiff/petitioner vide the impugned order in this revision petition. The learned court below while dismissing the said petition held as follows:-

(3.) Mr. Roychoudhury assailing the findings of the said court below submits that the question of taking further leave in order to introduce the said Regret Letter as the document relied by the plaintiff/petitioner under Order VII Rule 14 of the CPC does not arise inasmuch as the said document was relied at the time of filing the plaint in the suit and to that effect there is a specific pleading in the plaint. Even then the learned court below came to the finding that the plaintiff did not take any leave of the court to receive any document at the stage of hearing. Accordingly, Mr. Roychoudhury seeks for interference of this order by this Court.