SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2016 Supreme(Cal) 450

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
SAHIDULLAH MUNSHI, J.
SMT. PUSHPA DEVI BANGUR & ORS. – Petitioners
Versus
M.B. COMMERCIAL CO. LTD. & ANR. – Opposite Party
C.O. No.1809 of 2015
Decided On : 03-10-2016

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. S.K. Kapur, Sr. Adv., Mr. P.R. Gupta, Mr. P.K. Jhunjhunwala, Mr. Ravi Kapur, Mrs. Alpana Chowdhury
For the Opposite Party : Mr. S.P. Sarkar, Sr. Adv., Mr. Debajyoti Datta, Mr. Adil Rashid

The Court has a discretion to issue a commission for the examination of a witness on commission instead of examining the witness in open Court, particularly when the witness is a 'pardahnashin' lady.

Headnote:

COMMISSION FOR WITNESS - PARDANASHIN LADY - [Order XXVI Rule 1, 4A; Order XVIII Rule 4, 19; Section 132 of the Code of Civil Procedure]

Fact of the Case:

In a suit for eviction, the defendants/petitioners filed an application for examination of DW 5 on commission, contending that she was a 'pardahnashin' lady and belonged to a very orthodox Hindu family which does not permit her to go outside, that is to say, to depose in Court in front of public.

Finding of the Court:

The Court held that the learned Court below has failed to exercise a jurisdiction as provided under Order XXVI Rule 1 and Rule 4A of the Code of Civil Procedure read with Section 132 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

Issues: Whether the defendant DW 5 is a 'pardahnashin' lady and entitled to exemption from personal appearance in Court.

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court has a discretion to issue a commission for the examination of a witness on commission instead of examining the witness in open Court. 2. The Court, before allowing a prayer for issuing of commission to examine a witness, must consider whether such witness was vital and important. 3. The word 'may' in Rr. 1 and 4 means that Court has 'discretion' to issue commission and not that it is 'duty-bound' to issue it whenever asked for. 4. Section 132 of the Code recognizes the right of 'pardahnashin' ladies who, according to their custom, can claim the privilege of being examined on commission. 5. The fact that she had appeared on a former occasion in public or in Court or that she does not observe 'pardah' or the 'pardah' system has been relaxed has to be considered taking note of a particular facts and circumstances of a case pleaded by the party claiming exemption and seeking issue of commission. 6. The Court is bound to take note of the available evidence on record to examine the veracity of the statement made by the party seeking exemption under Section 132 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

Final Decision: The revisional application was allowed. The order impugned was set aside. The learned Court below was directed to issue a commission subject to payment of fees to be paid by the defendant.

JUDGMENT :

Sahidullah Munshi, J.

1. This revisional application is directed against Order No.231 dated 21st April, 2015, passed by the learned 4th Judge, City Civil Court at Calcutta in Title Suit No.2437 of 1996. The defendant nos.1(a) and 1(c) are the petitioners before this Court. The original petitioner no.1 being dead, Smt. Pushpa Devi Bangur and Smt. Rakhee Rajgharia have been substituted in place of original petitioner no.1, Gopal Das Bangur (since deceased). The substituted petitioner no.1(a), Smt. Pushpa Devi Bangur, is the widow of Gopal Das Bangur and Smt. Rakhee Rajgharia is the daughter of late Gopal Das Bangur. Petitioner no.2 is the son of the deceased Gopal Das Bangur, and is already on record.

2. The opposite party no.1 filed a suit being Title Suit No.2437 of 1996 in the City Civil Court at Calcutta for ejectment of the original defendant, Purushottam Das Bangur from the suit property. Plaintiff in the suit examined as many as five witnesses and the evidence on behalf of the plaintiff was concluded on 6th August, 2010. Prior to commencement of evidence of the defendants, original defendant died on 3rd December, 2010. The learned Court below fixed 17th December, 2012 for adducing evidence on behalf of the petitioners. On 17th December, 2012 affidavit of evidence of DW 1 Sri Hemant Bangur was filed and further examination-in-chief of DW 1 commenced for exhibiting the documents. On 16th September, 2013 oral evidence of DW 1 was completed and thereafter, oral evidence of DW 2 (Sri Abhay Gandhi) commenced on 30th September, 2013 and the same was concluded on 28th November, 2013. Thereafter, oral evidence of DW 3 (Sri Jugal Kishore Kankani) commenced and was completed on 20th February, 2014. Oral evidence of DW 4 (Sri Srikant Bangur) commenced from 13th March, 2014 and such evidence was concluded on 24th July, 2014. Learned Court below fixed 12th August, 2014 for examination of DW 5.

3. A case has been made out by the petitioner that by reason of certain disputes between two families, i.e., family of Sri L.N. Bangur and the family of the petitioners, the said Sri L.N. Bangur, in breach of the family arrangement, filed the present suit for eviction of the original defendant Purushottam Das Bangur, who was the natural father of Sri. L.N. Bangur from the suit property. It has been stated that the plaintiff was a family concern of the joint Bangur family. In pursuance of a family settlement made in the Bangur family, the plaintiff-company was allotted to Sri L.N. Bangur, the natural son of the original defendant Purushottam Das Bangur (since deceased). It is stated by the petitioners that for the purpose of proving the family settlement and/or family arrangement, it is absolutely necessary for the family members of Bangur family to give evidence in the suit. The senior-most family member, Sri Gopal Das Bangur (since deceased), who was suffering at the relevant time from various ailments, was not in a position to give evidence in the suit. In that view of the matter, his son, Sri Hemant Bangur, the petitioner no.2, gave oral evidence at the first instance. Another member of Bangur family, Sri Srikant Bangur also gave oral evidence. According to the defendants/petitioners, it became absolutely necessary for Smt. Pushpa Devi Bangur, substituted as petitioner no.1(a) to this revisional application being the widow of Sri Gopal Das Bangur (since deceased) and the mother of the said Sri Hemant Bangur, to give oral evidence in the suit to prove the family settlement and the family arrangement made in the Bangur family (emphasis supplied by Court).

4. It has been stated that DW 5, Smt. Pushpa Devi Bangur, is the daughter-in-law of Bangur family and that the said old Hindu family is a very conservative and orthodox one. According to the petitioner, DW 5, Smt. Pushpa Devi Bangur, was married to Sri Gopal Das Bangur in the year 1966 when female members of Bangur family used to maintain ‘pardah’ system and, as a result whereof, DW 5, Sm


































































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top