MADHUSUDAN HAZRA Vs. AMAL HAZRA
LAWS(CAL)-1996-3-10
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Decided on March 12,1996

MADHUSUDAN HAZRA Appellant
VERSUS
AMAL HAZRA Respondents





Cited Judgements :-

R M NATARAJAN CHETTIAR VS. SAHID HAMEED [LAWS(MAD)-2001-4-137] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

- (1.)The instant revisional application is directed against two orders, namely, order No. 207, dated 18-11-1992 and order No. 210, dated 1-12-1992 passed in Title Suit No. 101 of 1978 of the 3rd Court of Assistant District Judge, Howrah.
(2.)The facts and circumstances leading to this revisional application may shortly be stated as follows :
(3.)The suit was one for partition. In course of hearing of the suit the second witness of the plaintiff, viz., P.W. 2 was examined on 2-11-1992. At that stage the plaintiff prayed for adjournment for adducing further evidence and the learned -Judge allowed that prayer and fixed 18-11-1992 for further evidence. On 11-11-1992 the plaintiff filed a petition praying for summoning four witnesses including two Government officials, namely, the Executive Engineer of Howrah irrigation Department and the Compensation Officer, Howrah for bringing into evidence certain documents, relating to some acquisition of properties forming part of the subject-matter of the suit and awarding of compensation in respect there of. Along with that petition the plaintiff also filed written up processes and the requisite fees for issuance of the summons through Court upon the said four witnesses. The Court allowed that prayer by its order No. 206, dated 11-111992 and issued summons fixing 18-11-1992, the date already fixed, for further evidence. On 18-11-1992, the plaintiff filed a petition for adjournment of the hearing on the grounds that the service return of the summons that was issued in terms of the order dated 11-111992 wad not received by the Court and that in the absence of the return it was not ascertainable whether summons was actually served or not and that concerned witnesses did not also appear for giving evidence. The defendants opposed the prayer for adjournment but also treated the plaintiffs' evidence as closed fixing 11-12-1992 as the date for dafence evidence. On 24-11-1992, the plaintiff filed a verified petition praying for issuance of fresh summons upon the said four witnesses for causing attendance of whom the Court issued the summons in terms of order No. 206, dated 11-11-1992, alleging that the summons were not issued from the Court's Najarat even though the Court ordered their issuance and that they have filed further summons and the requisite fees for issuing the summons afresh upon the self-same witnesses. This petition for fresh summons was moved on 1-12-1992 in presence of the defendants and the learned Judge by order No. 12, dated 1-12-1992 rejected the petition only on the ground that the order dated 18-111992 by which the plaintiffs' evidence was already treated as closed by the Court was neither set aside nor modified. In such view of the matter, he rejected the plaintiffs' prayer for fresh summons. Being aggrieved by both the orders dated 18-11-1992 and 1-12-1992, the plaintiffs' have come up in the instant revision.
;


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