RAM RAI Vs. SULOCHNA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this revision, the petitioner has challenged an order passed by the Trial Cout whereby the application of the petitioner summoning the plaintiff's witnesses for cross-examination has been rejected.

(2.) Learned Counsel for the petitioner has stated that in the suit, the plaintiff has based her case on one of the grounds that her son needs premises reasonably and bona fidely but this fact has been brought on record by an amendment by the petitioner-defendant that son for whose bona fide necessity, the suit was filed, has gone in adoption and the plaintiff has also acquired another premises. These facts have been brought on record after closure of the evidence of the plaintiff by seeking amendment by the defendant.

(3.) The case of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that to cross-examine witnesses of the plaintiffs on the freshly added pleadings, they are required to be recalled because burden of proving bona fide necessity is on the plaintiff and unless plaintiff and her witnesses are cross-examined on the aspects of freshly added pleadings, the case of the petitioner-defendant will be seriously jeopardised.