SAGAR DEBBARMA Vs. RATAN BARDHAN
LAWS(TRIP)-2019-7-30
HIGH COURT TRIPURA
Decided on
July 16,2019
Sagar Debbarma
Appellant
VERSUS
Ratan Bardhan
Respondents
Referred Judgements :-
BREEN VS. AMALGAMATED ENGINEERING UNION [REFERRED TO]HARINAGAR SUGAR MILLS LIMITED VS. SHYAM SUNDER JHUNJHUNWALA [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF MADRAS VS. A R SRINIVASAN [REFERRED TO]
TRAVANCORE RAYON LIMITED VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
WOOLCOMBERS OF INDIA LIMITED VS. WOOLCOMBERS WORKERS UNION [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH VS. MOHAN LAL KAPOOR:K N MISRA [REFERRED TO]
TARA CHAND KHATRI VS. MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI [REFERRED TO]
GURDIAL SINGH FIJJI VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [REFERRED TO]
RAMAVARMABHARATHANTHAMPURAM VS. STATE OF KERALA [REFERRED TO]
FAUJA SINGH VS. JASPAL KAUR [REFERRED TO]
HINDUSTAN TIMES LIMITED VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH VS. BATTAN [REFERRED TO]
CHARAN SINGH VS. HEALING TOUCH HOSPITAL [REFERRED TO]
RAJ KISHORE JHA VS. STATE OF BIHAR [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF ORISSA VS. DHANIRAM LUHAR [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. BALI RAMU PAWAR [REFERRED TO]
KRANTI ASSOCIATES PVT LTD VS. SH MASOOD AHMED KHAN [REFERRED TO]
MANOHAR S/O MANIKRAO ANCHULE VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [REFERRED TO]
CENTRAL BOARD OF TRUSTEES VS. INDORE COMPOSITE PVT LTD [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
Sanjay Karol, CJ. -
(1.)Order dtd. 12/3/2018 impugned herein is reproduced verbatim as under:
"12/3/2018.
Today is fixed for further hearing on the applications, dtd. 1/1/2017 and order.
Ld. Advocate Mr. P. K. Dhar is present for the plaintiff.
Ld. Advocate, Mr. P. Saha is present for defendant side.
Ld. Advocate for the plaintiff submits that on 1/11/2017 plaintiff filed 5(five) nos. of applications such as application to admit documents so filed after comparing with the originals lying in TS 203 of 2013, application U/O.XVI, Rule-2 and 3 read with Sec.151 of CPC for issuing summons upon the plaintiff's witnesses, application for allowing the plaintiff to adduce further evidence by accepting the examination-in-chief so filed, application U/O.VI, Rule-17 read with Sec.151 of CPC for amendment of the plaint and application U/O.I, Rule-10 of CPC for adding one Sri Soumen Bhattacharjee as one of the defendants to this suit.
On the contrary, Ld. Advocate for defendants submits that they filed 3 nos. of objections against the applications of plaintiff filed U/O.I, Rule-10(2) of CPC, U/O.VI, Rule-17 of CPC and against the application to adduce further evidence.
Heard and considered.
The first application of the plaintiff to admit documents after comparing with the originals lying in TS 203/13 is allowed.
The office is asked to place the case record of TS 203/13 on the next date with the present suit.
The application of plaintiff filed U/O.XVI, Rule-2 and 3 read with Sec.151 of CPC for issuing summons upon the plaintiff's witnesses is also allowed for the interest of justice.
The plaintiff is directed to submit requisites accordingly by 7 (seven) days.
The application for allowing the plaintiff to adduce further evidence by accepting the examination-in-chief so filed of P.Ws. 2 and 3 is also allowed for the interest of justice.
The application U/O.I, Rule-10 of CPC for adding one Sri Soumen Bhattacharjee as one of the defendants to this suit is rejected being lack of substance as the land sold by deceased Dipali Bardhan to Sri Soumen Bhattacharjee is not part of the suit land.
The application U/O.VI, Rule-17 read with Sec.151 of CPC for amendment of the plaint also rejected being no substance since trial with this suit has already been commenced and plaintiff failed to show that in spite due diligence he could not has raise the matter before.
The plaintiff is directed to remain present on the next date along with P.Ws for their cross-examination.
The office is asked to issue summons upon the P.Ws, if requisites found proper.
Fix 12/4/18 for cross of P.ws."
(2.)To say the least, applications stand considered and decided in a most cryptic and unreasoned manner.
(3.)The Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in Harinagar Sugar Mills Ltd. v. Shyam Sunder Jhunjhunwala and others, AIR 1961 SC 1669 while drawing the distinction between a judicial and quasi-judicial authority emphasized the importance and significance of the matter being decided in a judicial manner.
;
"12/3/2018.
Today is fixed for further hearing on the applications, dtd. 1/1/2017 and order.
Ld. Advocate Mr. P. K. Dhar is present for the plaintiff.
Ld. Advocate, Mr. P. Saha is present for defendant side.
Ld. Advocate for the plaintiff submits that on 1/11/2017 plaintiff filed 5(five) nos. of applications such as application to admit documents so filed after comparing with the originals lying in TS 203 of 2013, application U/O.XVI, Rule-2 and 3 read with Sec.151 of CPC for issuing summons upon the plaintiff's witnesses, application for allowing the plaintiff to adduce further evidence by accepting the examination-in-chief so filed, application U/O.VI, Rule-17 read with Sec.151 of CPC for amendment of the plaint and application U/O.I, Rule-10 of CPC for adding one Sri Soumen Bhattacharjee as one of the defendants to this suit.
On the contrary, Ld. Advocate for defendants submits that they filed 3 nos. of objections against the applications of plaintiff filed U/O.I, Rule-10(2) of CPC, U/O.VI, Rule-17 of CPC and against the application to adduce further evidence.
Heard and considered.
The first application of the plaintiff to admit documents after comparing with the originals lying in TS 203/13 is allowed.
The office is asked to place the case record of TS 203/13 on the next date with the present suit.
The application of plaintiff filed U/O.XVI, Rule-2 and 3 read with Sec.151 of CPC for issuing summons upon the plaintiff's witnesses is also allowed for the interest of justice.
The plaintiff is directed to submit requisites accordingly by 7 (seven) days.
The application for allowing the plaintiff to adduce further evidence by accepting the examination-in-chief so filed of P.Ws. 2 and 3 is also allowed for the interest of justice.
The application U/O.I, Rule-10 of CPC for adding one Sri Soumen Bhattacharjee as one of the defendants to this suit is rejected being lack of substance as the land sold by deceased Dipali Bardhan to Sri Soumen Bhattacharjee is not part of the suit land.
The application U/O.VI, Rule-17 read with Sec.151 of CPC for amendment of the plaint also rejected being no substance since trial with this suit has already been commenced and plaintiff failed to show that in spite due diligence he could not has raise the matter before.
The plaintiff is directed to remain present on the next date along with P.Ws for their cross-examination.
The office is asked to issue summons upon the P.Ws, if requisites found proper.
Fix 12/4/18 for cross of P.ws."
(2.)To say the least, applications stand considered and decided in a most cryptic and unreasoned manner.
(3.)The Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in Harinagar Sugar Mills Ltd. v. Shyam Sunder Jhunjhunwala and others, AIR 1961 SC 1669 while drawing the distinction between a judicial and quasi-judicial authority emphasized the importance and significance of the matter being decided in a judicial manner.
;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.