PRASENJIT MANDAL, J. - (1.) This application is at the instance of the defendant and is directed against the Order No.64 dated June 13, 2011 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), 2nd Court, Barasat in Title Suit No.146 of 2007 thereby disposing of two applications filed by the defendant.
(2.) The short fact is that the plaintiff / opposite party no.1 herein instituted a suit for declaration of his tenancy right, permanent injunction and other reliefs against the defendant. The said suit has been registered as Title Suit No.146 of 2007. The opposite party no.2 herein instituted a suit being Title Suit No.145 of 2007 against the petitioner before the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), 2nd Court, Barasat for specific performance of contract and the petitioner is contesting the said suit by filing a written statement along with a counter-claim denying the material allegations contained in the plaint in the said suit. The petitioner filed an application for analogous hearing of two suits. But that prayer was rejected by the learned Trial Judge.
(3.) While the evidence in Title Suit No.146 of 2007 was being recorded on behalf of the defendant no.1, during his crossexamination, several questions were put to him which touched the merit of the Title Suit No.145 of 2007 and as such, an application had been preferred for expunction of the evidence of the D.W.1 to that effect. That application was rejected by the impugned order. The petitioner filed another application for rectification of a date contending, inter alia, that in the deposition it was recorded that the D.W.1 went to Singapur on May 26, 1996 but he actually went to Singapur on June 6, 1996 but the date was wrongly written as on May 26, 1996, that mistake was to be corrected. That application was also rejected. Being aggrieved by such orders, this revisional application has been preferred. Now, the question is whether the impugned order should be sustained.;