PRASENJIT MANDAL, J. - (1.) CHALLENGE is to the order dated July 5, 2013 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), 2nd Court, Howrah in Title Suit No.63 of 2010 thereby rejecting the petitioner's application for recall of the order dated February 4, 2013.
(2.) THE plaintiff/opposite party herein instituted the aforesaid suit for a decree of recovery of Rs.14,50,000/ - interest, further interest and other reliefs against the defendant/petitioner herein and the defendant/petitioner herein is contesting the said suit by filing a written statement denying the material allegations raised in the suit. The said suit is at the stage of recording evidence and at this stage the plaintiff has filed an application under Order 11 Rule 21 of the C.P.C. and the said application of the plaintiff has been allowed on contests thereby striking out the defence indicating that the defendant is placed in the same position as if he had not defended. Being aggrieved, the defendant has filed an application under Section 151/152 of the C.P.C. for reconsideration of the order dated February 4, 2013 and the said application has also been rejected by the order dated July 5, 2013. Being aggrieved, this application has been preferred. Now, the question is whether the impugned order should be sustained. Upon hearing the learned Counsel for the parties and on going through the materials on record, I find that the question of inspection of certain original documents is the subject matter of the impugned order. By filing the application under Order 11 Rule 21 of the C.P.C. the plaintiff has called for the documents which have been indicated in the seizure list showing the xerox copies of these documents had been seized by the police in connection with a police case and the originals are lying with the defendant.
(3.) THE defendant bank has categorically stated that it is not in possession of those documents and as such it is unable to comply with the directions of the order dated February 4, 2013.;