Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Anowar Sadat & Anr vs Ujir Seikh & Ors on 4 August, 2023
S/L 13
04.08.2023
Court. No. 29
Suvayan
CO 1306 of 2021
Anowar Sadat & Anr.
Vs.
Ujir Seikh & Ors.
Mr. Rwitendra Banerjee
Mr. Shibasis Chatterjee
...for the petitioners.
Mr. Partha Pratim Roy
Mr. Dyutiman Banerjee
...for the opposite parties.
1.
Both the petitioners and the opposite parties are
represented by their respective learned Advocates.
2. Heard learned Advocate for the
plaintiffs/petitioners and the defendants/opposite parties
in support and against the instant revisional application.
3. The instant revisional application is now taken up
for hearing for passing appropriate order.
4. In this revisional application as filed under Article
227 of the Constitution of India the Order No. 68 dated
March 6, 2020 as passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior
Division), 2nd Court, Jangipur, District - Murshidabad in
Title Suit No. 107 of 2015 has been impugned. By the
impugned order learned Trial Court rejected the
plaintiffs' application for issuance of summons to witness
upon one Shyamal Roy for production of some documents
relating to the proceeding under Section 14T WBLR Act
before the BL & LRO, Samserganj in proceeding Nos.
29/76, 30 of 76 and 31 of 76. While passing the impugned
judgment learned Trial Court noticed that for production
of the aforementioned document the plaintiffs has prayed
for issuance of summons to witness upon several persons
who could not file and/or produce such documents
stating inter alia that those documents were not in their
possession. While passing the impugned order learned
Trial Court, thus, came to a finding that the plaintiffs in
Title Suit No. 107 of 2015 was not sure about the person
with whom the said documents are lying and for that
reason the learned Trial Court refused to pass a
favourable order for issuance of summons to witness in
the name of one Sri Shyamal Roy who according to the
plaintiffs is in possession of the aforementioned
documents.
5. Drawing attention to the photocopy of the plaint as
filed in Title Suit No. 107 of 2015 it is contended by Mr.
Banerjee that the aforementioned documents are very
much necessary for proving the title of the plaintiffs in
respect of the suit property and, therefore, in order to
discharge his burden the plaintiffs have no other
alternative but to pray for issuance of summons to
witness upon one Sri Shyamal Roy who as per the
knowledge of the plaintiffs is in possession of the said
documents being the documents relating to the
proceeding under Section 14T of WBLR Act in respect of
the suit property.
6. While opposing the prayer, Mr. Dyutiman
Banerjee, learned Advocate for the opposite
parties/defendants, however, contended that learned
Trial Court is very much justified in passing the impugned
order since it is the clear finding of the learned Trial Court
that the plaintiffs are not at all sure about the person with
whom the said document is lying and before the learned
Trial Court the plaintiffs made several attempts to call for
the said documents which the learned Trial Court in his
own wishdom allowed but the plaintiffs had miserably
failed in producing these documents through the said
witness.
7. It is further contended by Mr. Banerjee, learned
Advocate for the defendants/opposite parties that learned
Trial court is equally justified in passing the impugned
order since there occurred inordinate delay in disposing
Title Suit No. 107 of 2015 on account of the series of
reckless attempt made by the plaintiffs for summoning
witness.
8. On perusal of the entire materials as placed before
this Court and after hearing the learned Advocate for the
contending parties and also on perusal of the impugned
order it reveals that learned Trial Court has given ample
opportunities to the plaintiffs to produce the documents
as called for through many persons whom the plaintiffs
intend to rely as P.W.s by issuing summons to witness but
all such effort went into vein. This Court, thus, finds
sufficient justification on the part of the learned Trial
Court in passing the impugned order.
9. However, considering the fact that since before the
learned Trial Court, the plaintiff is duty bound to prove
his own case by adducing evidence either oral or
documentary, this Court considers that another
opportunity may be given to the present
plaintiffs/petitioners to produce the documents through
plaintiffs' proposed witness Sri Shyamal Roy but within a
specified time.
10. Accordingly, the instant revisional application is
hereby allowed on contest. Consequently, the impugned
Order No. 68 dated March 6, 2020 as passed by learned
Civil Judge (Junior Division), 2nd Court, Jangipur,
District - Murshidabad in Title Suit No. 107 of 2015 is
hereby set aside. Learned Trial Court is hereby directed
to issue summons to witness in the name of Sri Shyamal
Roy for production of the minutes of the proceeding as
held under Section 14T of the WBLR Act in case Nos.
29/76, 30 of 76 and 31 of 76 in the Office of BL & LRO,
Samserganj, Murshidabad. It is further ordered that the
aforesaid summons to witness shall have to be issued by
registered or speed post with A/D and/or under the
provision of Order 5 Rule 9A of the Code of Civil
Procedure and in the event the plaintiffs fails to produce
his witness, namely, Sri Shyamal Roy as well as the
documents called for on the returnable date or on the
next date of hearing which must not be more than eight
weeks from the date of communication of this order, the
learned Trial Court is at liberty to close the proposed
evidence of the said plaintiffs' witness Sri Shyamal Roy
with a further direction that the learned Trial Court shall
not issue any further summons to witness for production
of the aforementioned documents.
11. With the aforementioned observation, the instant
revisional application being CO 1306 of 2021 is disposed
of.
12. Parties to act on the server copies of this order.
13. Urgent photostat certified copies of this order, if
applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance
with all the necessary formalities.
(Partha Sarathi Sen, J.)
