Partha Ranjan Kar vs Kamala Singh
2024 Latest Caselaw 4813 Cal

Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)

Partha Ranjan Kar vs Kamala Singh on 18 September, 2024

Author: Rajasekhar Mantha

Bench: Rajasekhar Mantha

18.09.2024.
Court No. 13
 Sl. No. 29
  sp
                           F.A. No. 106 of 1997
                                   With
                              CAN 6 of 2011
                                   With
                             CAN 11 of 2012
                                   With
                             CAN 12 of 2012
                                   With
                             CAN 14 of 2013
                                   With
                             CAN 15 of 2013
                                   With
                             CAN 16 of 2019
                                   With
                             CAN 17 of 2020
                                   With
                             CAN 18 of 2020
                                   With
                             CAN 19 of 2020

                             Partha Ranjan Kar
                                  Versus
                               Kamala Singh

               Mr. Probal Kumar Mukherjee, Ld. Sr. Advocate,
               Mr. Bhaskar Mukherjee,
               Ms. Debdeeta Dutta
                                                   ... for the appellant.
               Mr. Aniruddha Chatterjee,
               Mr. Rahul Karmakar,
               Mr. Abir Lal Chakraborty,
               Mr. Amiya Kumar Patra,
               Mr. Tuhin Subhra Patra,
                              ..for the added respondent nos. 3, 5, 6 and 7.

Mr. Jahar Lal Ray, Ms. Kavita Rani, Mr. Saptarshi Kumar Kundu ... for the added respondent.

1. Despite five several earlier benches having passed as

many as 7 orders directing the documents exhibited by

the defendant in the suit, particularly, "A", "B" and "C",

being the Sale Certificate, Kabuliat and a Patta, which

was registered in the year 1950, the concerned

defendant has not produced the same.

2. The reasons for calling for production is that after the

hearing of the suit was concluded and judgment was

passed, on 20th August, 1991, a learned Advocate, one

P.K. Mukherjee, on 30th July, 1992 took back from the

Court the entire original Exhibits filed on behalf of the

defendant in the suit. The said exhibits included the

aforesaid three documents. It appears that the said

learned Advocate Mr. Mukherjee has since passed away.

3. It is based on the aforesaid three documents, that the

Trial Court found the added respondent nos. 5, 6 and 7

have derived title through the title of the defendant in

the suit.

4. This was an additional ground for dismissing the suit

filed by the plaintiff for declaration of title and for khas

possession of the property in question.

5. The other grounds were, inter alia, that the plaintiff was

not able to exactly demarcate the extent of his property

comprising in 73 decimals of land and the fact that all

the recorded owners/successors in interest were not

parties in the suit.

6. The Court below also found that there was no

commonality of interest in the plaintiffs.

7. Both Mr. Mukherjee and Mr. Chatterjee refer to

Chapter- V Rule 32A of the Calcutta High Court

Appellate Side Rules.

8. Rules 32A, 32A (i) and 32A (ii) prescribe that a party

who is not able to produce exhibits in the Court below

after they are taken away, should not be allowed to rely

upon the same before the High Court in appeal.

9. Rule 32A (iii) however permits the concerned party to

produce authenticate/certified copies of such

documents.

10. This Court is of the view a last opportunity may be

given to the added respondents in this appeal and the

original defendant of the suit to produce the aforesaid

documents in terms of the aforesaid, Rule 32A (iii) and

(iv) by the adjourned date. The time given is peremptory.

No further time would be allowed to any party to

produce any such documents.

11. Let this matter stand adjourned and be listed on 11 th

December, 2024.

12. The authorities concerned before whom the

documents are stated to have been registered, shall

extend cooperation in providing the said documents to

the parties to this appeal and particularly the affected

parties, namely, the respondents.

13. An affidavit has been filed by the original defendant

in the suit today, which is kept with the record. The

parties concerned are at liberty to file objection, if they

so deem necessary.

14.List accordingly.

(Rajasekhar Mantha, J.)

(Ajay Kumar Gupta, J.)