Goutam Chatterjee vs Partha Chatterjee
2022 Latest Caselaw 2022 Cal/2

                                       1


OD-1

                                 TS/17/2018

                 IA NO. GA/3/2019 (Old No. GA/2723/2019)

                                 GA/4/2021

                     IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

                     Testamentary & Intestate Jurisdiction

                               ORIGINAL SIDE



                              IN THE GOODS OF:

                         MIRA CHATTERJEE, DECEASED

                                    -AND-

                            GOUTAM CHATTERJEE

                                     -VS-

                            PARTHA CHATTERJEE



BEFORE :

The Hon'ble JUSTICE KRISHNA RAO

Date: 21st July, 2022.

                                                                 Appearance:
                                                      Mr. Supratim Laha, Adv.
                                                      Mr. Debkumar Sen, Adv.

                                                  Mr. Debdut Mukherjee, Adv.
                                                   Mr. Dhilon Sengupta, Adv.



                                   ORDER

The plaintiff has filed an application praying for appointment of

Commissioner for recording of the cross examination of the witness no. 1,

namely Mr. Ranjan Mathews on the ground that on 18.09.2020, the witness

underground permanent pacemaker implantation and is continuous under

medical treatment and he has been advised to stay at home and to avoid

crowded place. The petitioner in support of his application has enclosed the

medical treatment documents wherein it appears that since the year 2006, the

petitioner is continuous under medical treatment and on 18.09.2020

permanent pacemaker implantation was done.

The Counsel for the respondent objected the application filed by the

petitioner and submits that for the purpose of examination-in-chief, the

witness had appeared in person before this Court and his examination-in-chief

is recorded and only to avoid the cross-examination before this Court has filed

the instant application. The Counsel for the respondent submits that as per the

document filed by the petitioner, the petitioner was suffering from heart

ailment since the year 2006 and had appeared before this Court for recording

of his evidence. The certificate relied by the petitioner is of September, 2020

when the permanent pacemaker implantation was done and thereafter, there is

no document to show that the petitioner is not in opposition to move or to

appear before this Hon'ble Court.

Counsel for the respondent further submits that the certificate relied by

the petitioner dt. 18.05.2021 is issued by the Child Specialist though the

petitioner is suffering from heart ailment.

Considered the rival submissions of the respective parties and the

document filed by the petitioner. As per the certificate issued by the NH

Rabindranath Tagore International Institute of Cardiac Science, the petitioner

was admitted at the hospital on 18.09.2020 and was discharged on

20.09.2020. On 18.09.2020, a permanent pacemaker implantation was done.

After discharged from the said hospital there is no document to show that the

witness is still under medical treatment. One document filed by the petitioner

in the reply issued by Dr. Arindam Mondal Consultant and Child Specialist

certifying that the witness under his supervision and has a history of CABG in

2006 and pacemaker implant in September, 2020 and he is vaccinated

Covishield on 13.03.2021 and 13.04.2021 and he has been advised to stay at

home and to avoid crowded place.

The Counsel for the respondent relied upon the judgment reported in AIR

2004 Cal 89 (Pradip Kumar Goenka & Ors. -versus- Manju Bhartia & Ors.) and

submits that the said case is squarely applicable in the instant case as in the

instant case also the witness had appeared before this Court at the time of

recording of his evidence in chief but only to avoid the cross-examination

before this Court has filed the instant application.

Admittedly, prior to the month of September, 2020, the witness appeared

in person and his examination-in-chief was recorded but subsequently in the

month of September, 2020 he has underground pacemaker implantation and

he was advised to stay home and to avoid crowded place and thus this Court is

of the view it would be proper not to compel the witness to appear before this

Court in person for his cross-examination and thus Mr. Partha Sarathi Basu,

Advocate (Bar Association Room No. 2) is appointed as Commissioner for

recording the evidence of cross-examination of the witness namely Mr. Ranjan

Mathews at his residence.

The petitioner shall pay the cost of Commissioner Fee of 500 gm per

sitting. The Commissioner shall notify the date of recording the cross-

examination of the witness Mr. Ranjan Mathews at his residence to the

Assistant Registrar of this Court so as to unable to produce the document of

this case at the time of recording of evidence of the said witness on

commission.

The Commissioner is directed to complete the cross-examination of

witness No. 1 of plaintiff by 20th August, 2022 and report on 26.08.2022.

GA 4 of 2021 is disposed of.

(KRISHNA RAO, J.)

p.d