JUDGMENT :

SUBHASIS DASGUPTA, J.

1. Closure of the evidence of P.W.1 upon rejecting the prayer for adjournment of defendant/petitioner is assailed in this case.

2. Mr. Chakraborty, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that there would be a serious consequence ensued, and that will lead deprivation of valuable rights of the petitioner to cross-examine the plaintiff’s witness before a court of law.

3. It is thus submitted by Mr. Chakraborty that there may be some misconduct on the part of the petitioner/defendant to cross-examine the plaintiff’s witness on the date already scheduled by the court below, but that should not be critically viewed in such a way resulting in gross injustice to petitioiner/defendant.

4. Reliance is placed on a decision by Mr. Chakraborty reported in 2022 (3) Indian Civil Cases 420 (Cal.) delivered in the case of Mirmala Debi Choubey and Others vs. Pranab Kumar Banerjee and Others to submit that an opportunity should be granted to the petitioner so that there may be effective cross-examination of the plaintiff’s witness to unfold the controversy surfaced at the moment requiring a decision to be returned by the court below.

5. Mr. Kushal Chatterjee