The main legal point established in the judgment is that the court affirmed the reasons assigned by the learned Trial Court in declining the pre-emptor no. 2 to be examined further as P.W 2 in addition to the result of examination of P.W.1, and held that the learned District Judge acted beyond jurisdiction in entertaining the interlocutory order for examination of its propriety.

Mir Dara Sheko, J.

1. The application under Article 227 of the constitution of India has been directed assailing the order dated 2nd April, 2016 passed by learned District Judge, Cooch Behar, in Civil Revision No. 15 of 2015 arisen out of the order dated 24th June, 2015 passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Dinhata in Misc. Pre-emption Case no. 7 of 2007.

2. Despite service of notice upon the opposite parties, none appears to represent the opposite parties pre-emptors. Affidavit of service attached with the postal receipts and track report showing delivery of item be kept on record.

3. Therefore, the case is taken up for consideration on merit of course upon hearing Mr. Asis Bhattacharyya, learned counsel representing the petitioners pre-emptees.

4. Heard and perused the materials on record.

5. It appears that the witness no. 1 as P.W 1 for himself and on behalf of all other pre-emptors had examined in the pre-emption case as P.W 1 and his cross-examination was also completed. After completion of examination of P.W 1, P.W 2 was proposed to be tendered again for examination on behalf of the pre-emptors.

6. It appears that P.W 1 Sarbeswar Barman is the pre-emptor petitioner no. 1, and, the proposed P.W 2 Jagneswar Barman is the pre-emptor petitioner no. 2.

7. Learned Civil Judge attending the objection of the pre-emptees, declined to allow examination of P.W 2, since P.W 1 was already examined in the pre-emption case for himself and on behalf of all other pre-emptors. Therefore, if P.W 2 again would be every possibility to be examined there would be disparity to fill up lacuna. It is the practise and procedure of the rule of evidence by which all concerned are guided. Law is set at rest that on behalf of either side of a proceeding, as many as witnesses may be examined to their satisfaction. But while amongst parties, be it plaintiffs or defendants, if any of them is examined for himself and on behalf of other plaintiffs or defendants, as the case may be and had there been conclusion of cross-examination to that witness, in that event save and except any exceptional circumstances for the ends of justice, that too within the consideration of the Court only, either of the remaining parties is not entitled to adduce denovo evidence. Although, however, the said party would be at liberty to adduce some more corroborative evidence through other independent witnesses. This rule of evidence is to be followed and shall be followed to maintain all fairness so that the benefit, if any, derived by the opponent after completion of cross-examination to such a witness there may be every possibility to demolish the same if any further party, be it any of the other plaintiffs or be it any of the other defendants be allowed to be further examined. In that event the opponent shall be prejudiced. Therefore, learned Trial Court rightly rejected the prayer of tendering preemptor no. 2 for examination despite already examination of P.W 1 who deposed for himself and other petitioners.

8. This is further curious as to how the learned District Judge entertained the Order no. 59 dated 24.6.2015 to deal with revisional jurisdiction under Section 115A of the Code of Civil Procedure at the instance of the opposite parties pre-emptors.

9. By incorporation of Section 115A though the revisional jurisdiction has been vested in the Code of Civil Procedure by way of State amendment by which the District Court also may exercise all or any of the powers, which may be exercised by this Court under Section 115 of the Code but Learned District Judge in entertaining the interlocutory order to examine its propriety was acted beyond jurisdiction. For appreciation of the power also of the District Court, so far as the revisional jurisdiction is concerned, the relevant provision laid down in the second proviso of Section 115 is set out :-

"Provided further that the High Court or the District Court shall not, under this section, vary or reverse any order including