- (1.) The judgment of the Court was as follows: After closure of evidence of both the parties, the plaintiffs filed an application for examining another witness, viz., Banku Behari Pal in the suit. THE plaintiffs' said application was rejected by the learned Trial Judge vide Order No. 135 dated 19th April, 2006.
(2.) The plaintiffs are aggrieved by the said order. Hence, the plaintiffs have come before this Court with this application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Heard the learned Advocates appearing for the respective parties. Considered the materials-on-record including the impugned order. Let me now consider as to how far the learned Trial Judge was justified in passing the impugned order in the facts of the instant case.
(3.) The plaintiffs/petitioners filed the partition suit against the defendants claiming their 1/2 share in the suit property. Though they have not stated in the plaint as to how they acquired interest in the suit property to the extent of 1/2 share therein but in course of evidence, they stated that they acquired 1/2 share in the suit property by virtue of two separate registered gift deeds executed by five co-sharers of the suit property. After the closure of evidence of both the parties, the plaintiffs wanted to examine another witness to establish that apart from the interest which they have acquired in the suit property by virtue of those registered deeds of gift, they have also inherited some shares in the suit property from their mother, Annapurna Kundu on her death.;