JUDGEMENT
Ajit Kumar Sengupta, J. -
(1.) This Revisional application by the plaintiff is directed against the order dated April 19, 1988 made by the Assistant District Judge, First Court, Alipore in Money Suit No. 8 of 1978. Be it recorded that notice of this application was served on the Respondent and an affidavit-of-service to that effect has been filed. The Respondent, however has not entered appearance.
(2.) Shortly stated the facts are that the plaintiff instituted the aforsaid suit in 1978 claiming, inter alia, a decree for Rs. 2 lacs for injury alleged to have been inflicted upon his character, reputation and or standing by the publication and/or dissemination of certain alleged defamatery and libellous matter published by the defendant-respondent. The respondent/defendant appeared in the suit and contested the same by filing written statements.
(3.) The examination-in-chief of the plaintiff-petitioner commenced in September, 1986 and was concluded on December 10, 1987. The date for cross-examination of the plaintiff was fixed on April 19, 1988. Parties were present. Instead of directing the Counsel for the defendant to proceed with the cross-examination of the plaintiff, the learned Assistant District Judge directed de-novo hearing of the case for the reasons mentioned in the impugned order. The material part of the impugned order is as follows:-
"I am astonished to find that the evidence in examination-in-chief has run into 39 pages. More than one Presiding Officer of this Court recorded the evidence. On a perusal of the evidence I find that many irrelevant matters have been recorded in the examination-in-chief which were not at all necessary for adjudication of this suit. This has made impossible for me to proceed further on this evidence. I am apprehensive that if I proceed with such lengthy evidence then it will cause loss much of my valuable judicial hours and that it will cause loss to the other litigants who appear before this Court to seek justice. So I find that this is a fit case where de-novo hearing should be made.";
Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.