DEBANGSU BASAK, J. - (1.) THE suit which was for declaration and partition was pending since 1990. The witness action in the suit commenced before me. The witness of the plaintiff was examined in Chief on January 31, 2014 and was cross -examined on February 28, 2014. The cross -examination of such witness concluded on that date. The plaintiff produced only one witness on his behalf. The Defendant No. 1 produced himself as his witness. The Defendant No. 1 was examined in Chief on March 6, 2014 and cross -examined on March 20, 2014. The cross -examination of the Defendant No. 1 was concluded on that date.
(2.) IN the course of cross -examination, the Defendant No. 1 through his Advocate's letter dated March 11, 2014 disclosed documents which the defendant no. 1 sought to rely upon in the suit. The Defendant No. 1, thereafter, applied for his re -examination by G.A. No. 801 of 2014. The Defendant No. 1 sought leave to withdraw such application with liberty to file afresh. Such liberty was granted by an order dated April 11, 2014. The present application was made subsequent thereto. By the present application the Defendant No. 1 sought an opportunity to be re -examined so as to enable the Defendant No. 1 to fill in the lacuna and explain the inconsistencies that remained in the examination in Chief and which surfaced at the time of cross examination. It was contended on behalf of the Defendant No. 1 that, for the ends of Justice the Defendant No. 1 should be permitted to be re -examined on the documents disclosed. The documents disclosed as well as the examination of the Defendant No. 1 were necessary to render Justice between the parties.
(3.) THE application was opposed by the plaintiff. It was contended on behalf of the plaintiff that, the Defendant No. 1 adopted dilatory tactics. Reliance was placed on an order dated August 14, 2012 which recorded that there was clear indication that the defendants were trying to delay the matter. The defendants did not disclose documents as late as on July 31, 2012 which prompted the learned Judge to arrive at the finding that the defendants were trying to delay the matter. It was contended on behalf of the plaintiff that, the present application was another instance of dilatory tactics adopted by the Defendant No. 1.;