- (1.) In the instant revisional application the legality and propriety of order no. 58 dated 11.07.2008 passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) at Alipore in Ejectment Suit no. 179 of 2004 has been assailed.
(2.) It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that the said petitioner opposite party filed a petition before the learned Court below praying for an order of personal appearance of petitioner no. 2 for crossexamination by the learned Advocate for the opposite party. After due consideration of the matter the learned Court below has rejected the prayer on contest with cost of Rs. 200/-. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with such order the petitioner has preferred this revisional application contending, inter alia, that the impugned order is contrary to the order passed on 27.06.2008 by allowing the prayer of the petitioner for recalling the earlier order dated 27.06.1998. Is the outcome of non-application of his mind and in this way he has acted as appellate Court by recalling his own order which is an abuse of the process of law at the instance of the petitioner. Learned lawyer for the opposite parties on the contrary has contended that the learned Court below has rightly passed the order and recalled his earlier order to prevent miscarriage of justice and there is no merit in this revisional application which is liable to be dismissed. Under the circumstances the only point for my consideration is to decide as to whether the learned Court below is justified in recalling his order passed on 27.06.2008.
(3.) It appears from record that the petitioners in Ejectment Suit no. 179 of 2004 filed a petition contending, inter alia, that on 27.06.2008 the opposite party filed a petition seeking permission to summon the petitioner no. 2 as witness without any reason which was allowed by the Court inadvertently and contrary to law because the same prayer was earlier rejected by the Court itself. In their written objection the opposite party, however, claimed that as per law either of the parties can call the other party as witness of his case in appropriate situation and so they wanted to tender the opposite party no. 2 as defence witness who may not support the petitioner s case. The above petition was filed while 24.06.2008 was fixed for evidence of DW-2, in default for argument. However, on 27.11.2006 the learned Trial Court considered the submissions made by both the parties and rejected the prayer on two grounds.;