For The vs .
2022 Latest Caselaw 753 Tri

                                Page 1 of 3


                       HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
                            AGARTALA

                           CRP NO.43 OF 2022
   Sri Joydeb Das
   Vs.
   The State of Tripura.

             HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T. AMARNATH GOUD

   Present:

   For the Petitioner(s)                : Mr. H. Deb, Advocate.

   For the Respondent(s)                : Mr. J. Majumder, Advocate.

08.08.2022

Order

This instant revision petition has been filed under Article

227 of the Constitution of India against the order passed by learned

Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Dhalai Judicial District, Ambassa in Case

No. Title Suit 37 of 2016 (Renumbered as T.S. 16/2018) on

03.06.2022, rejecting the prayer/petition of petitioner-plaintiffs

under Section 151 of Civil Procedure Code for re-calling the

witnesses for exhibiting and marking 4(four) number of public

documents.

It is the case of the petitioner that he filed the suit in the

year 2016. Subsequently, in the mid of the year 2022, he obtained

the certified copies and filed the same before the Court below.

Further, the petitioner has relied on the Judgment of Apex Court

passed in K.K. Velusamy Vs. N. Palanisamy reported in (2011)

11 SCC 275 and prayed to accept the documents as a part of the

evidence in support of his pleadings. The Court below has not

appreciated the pleadings made by the petitioner and the same was

dismissed.

Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner has filed this present

revision petition and prayed for the following reliefs:-

" (a) Admit the Revision Under Article 227 of the Constitution of India;

(b) Call for the record of Case No.T.S.37 OF 2016 (renumbered as T.S.16/2018) from the Trial Court;

(c) Issue notice upon the respondents;

(d) Stay the further proceeding of the trial of the suit by Trial Court during pendency of the revision petition.

(e) After hearing of both the parties set aside the impugned order dated 03.06.2022 in case No.T.S.37 OF 2016 (Renumbered as T.S.16/2018) and be kind enough to pass order for re-calling the witnesses for exhibiting the marking the document filed by the petitioner plaintiffs."

Heard Mr. H. Deb, learned counsel appearing for the

petitioner as well as Mr. J. Majumder, learned counsel appearing for

the respondent.

Mr. J. Majumder, learned counsel appearing for the

respondent has objected to the prayer made in the present revision

petition and prayed to dismiss the same on the ground that the

petitioner has not approached this court with clean hands. Learned

counsel further submitted that the petitioner had the certified copies

from the year 2016 to 2022 but he had no occasion to approach the

Court and he has approached this Court at the belated stage.

Admittedly, when the petitioner filed the application before

the Court below, he was having the xerox copies since the year 2016

i.e. at the time of filing of the suit. The petitioner then after a lapse

of 6 years has come across the Court in the mid of 2022 by filing the

present application and the same was rejected. In so far the

Judgment of the Apex Court passed in K.K. Velusamy Vs. N.

Palanisamy(supra) is concerned, which the petitioner has relied

upon, the said Judgment is not relevant to the fact of the case. The

said Judgment i.e. K.K. Velusamy Vs. N. Palanisamy(supra) is

applicable to the issues when the parties come across a document at

a subsequent stage of filing of the suit and which has an evidentiary

value. The same can be placed in order to seek Justice and it is the

essence of the subject matter in the Order of the Apex Court.

But, whereas in the case at hand, the petitioner was very

much having the „xerox copies' of the document in the year 2016.

The petitioner has waited up to the year 2022 and has preferred the

application to take certified copies on record. There is no cogent

reason why it has taken 6 years for taking the certified copies and

why at the belated stage of the trial, the present documents are

placed on record.

Since the petitioner herein has not approached this Court

with clean hands and has not acted diligently, it is not for this Court

to appreciate the same.

Accordingly, for the reasons mentioned above, the present

revision petition stands dismissed.

Consequently, pending application(s), if any, also stands

closed.

JUDGE

suhanjit