- (1.) Heard learned Advocate for both the parties. In this revisional application, propriety of the Order No. 87 dated 18.11.2011 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), 1st Court at Durgapur in Title Suit No. 13 of 2005 has been called in question. The learned Court below while disposing of the application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure allowed the plaintiff/opposite party no. 1 herein to adduce further evidence. The background of the instant application is that the instant suit being T.S. 13/ 2005 was filed by the plaintiff/opposite party no. 1 and his mother but during the pendency of the suit, said mother of the plaintiff/opposite party no. 1 died. Since the plaintiff/opposite party no. 1 was employed outside the State of West Bengal, he could not appear to adduce evidence to substantiate his claim before the learned court below, but, after the death of his mother when he took initiative to take active part in dealing with the matter, he applied for permission of the Court to give evidence.
(2.) The learned Advocate for the plaintiff/opposite party no. 1, in course of hearing, drew my attention to the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Man Kaur (Dead) By LRS vs. Hartar Singh Sangha, 2010 10 SCC 512 and pointed out that initially an attorneyholder was examined but as he has no knowledge of the facts of the case and he was not in a position to take effective step on behalf of the plaintiff/opposite party no. 1 while dealing with Section 151 of the Code.
(3.) The learned Trial Court placing reliance on a decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Salem Advocate Bar Association, Tamil Nadu vs. Union of India, 2005 AIR(SC) 3353 held that the Court can direct or permit any party to examine any party or any witness at any stage.;