CALCUTTA STATE TRANSPORT CORPORATION Vs. LAKSHMI RANI PAL
LAWS(CAL)-1976-11-12
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Decided on November 11,1976

CALCUTTA STATE TRANSPORT CORPORATION Appellant
VERSUS
LAKSHMI RANI PAL Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

SHYAMAPADA NEOGY V. ASOKE KUMAR BISWAS [REFERRED TO]
NEW INDIA ASSURANCE V. PUNJAB ROADWAYS [REFERRED TO]



Cited Judgements :-

KAMALA VS. SASADHAR [LAWS(ORI)-1987-7-10] [REFERRED TO]
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO LTD VS. SENO [LAWS(P&H)-1997-11-36] [REFERRED TO]
RAMWATI VS. RAJVEER SINGH [LAWS(MPH)-2005-7-118] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

S.K.Datta, J. - (1.)In this Rule the Calcutta State Transport Corporation has challenged an order dated 5-2-1968 passed in motor accident claim case No. 127 of 1963.
(2.)It appears that there was admittedly a collision between Car No. WBC 7862 and State Bus No. WBS 1675 at the junction of Raja Dinendra Street and Ulta-danga Road at about 12 noon on 13-8-1963. As a result of this collision one of the passengers died and several passengers were injured. The person who died was the husband of the opposite party No. 1 and the father of the other opposite parties. The learned Judge was of the opinion that on the evidence adduced by the parties it was very difficult to decide either way. Accordingly, for ends of justice, by the impugned order he directed that an opportunity should be given to the claimants to examine further the P. Ws. 1, 2 and 3 and also to examine E. C. D'Souza, mechanical expert, who examined the Bus after the accident in connection with the criminal case arising out of the said accident, with like opportunity to the Corporation to examine its witnesses. The learned Judge relied on AIR 1964 Punj 235, New India Assurance v. Punjab Roadways wherein it was held that in the absence of a restraining provision a tribunal is at liberty to follow any procedure which it may choose to evolve for itself so long as such procedure is orderly and consistent with the rules of natural justice and does not contravene any provision of law. This order has been impugned in this Rule.
(3.)It has been contended that since Order 18, Rule 17 has been excluded in such trial, there is no scope for allowing further evidence to be adduced in re- examination in particular to patch up a lacuna in the evidence. He has also relied on the decision in Shyamapada Neogy v. Asoke Kumar Biswas reported in (1967) 71 Cal WN 747 in which it was held that the recall of witness after closure of evidence would cause surprise and gravest of prejudice to the other side and it was further held in that case that it was really to fill up the lacuna in the case, the pretext of re-examination was taken.
;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.