Back
2024 Supreme(Cal) 684
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CIRCUIT BENCH AT JALPAIGURI
M.V. MURALIDARAN, J.
Upen Roy @ Upendra Nath Roy – Appellant
Versus
Mahadev Mondal and Ors. – Respondents
C.O.No. 30 of 2023
Decided on : 25-01-2024
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. Narendra Nath Das, Mr. Jagesh Ch. Roy,
For the Respondent: Mr. Nabarun Pal, Mr. Abhisekh Sarkar,
The presiding officer's knowledge of witness demeanor and relevant depositions justifies the rejection of an application to prosecute a witness for false evidence.
Headnote:
False Evidence - Civil Procedure - Indian Penal Code - Sections 177, 181, 182 - The court rejected the petitioner's application to prosecute a witness for giving false evidence, citing that the witness's demeanor and relevant depositions were known to the presiding officer. The court also granted liberty to take steps under Section 24 of CPC due to the petitioner's aspersions against the presiding officer. The revision petition was dismissed.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed an application to prosecute a witness for giving false evidence, which was rejected by the trial Judge. The petitioner challenged this decision in a revision petition.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the trial Judge's rejection of the petitioner's application was justified, as the presiding officer knew the demeanor of the witness and relevant depositions. The court also noted the petitioner's aspersions against the presiding officer and granted liberty to take steps under Section 24 of CPC.
Issues: The issues involved the rejection of the petitioner's application to prosecute a witness for false evidence and the petitioner's aspersions against the presiding officer.
Ratio Decidendi: The presiding officer's knowledge of the witness's demeanor and relevant depositions, and the petitioner's aspersions against the presiding officer justified the court's decision to reject the application and grant liberty to take steps under Section 24 of CPC.
Final Decision: The revision petition was dismissed, and no costs were awarded.
JUDGMENT :
M.V. Muralidaran, J.:
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents.
2. Aggrieved by Order No.48, dated 22.2.2023 passed in Money Suit No.31 of 2014 by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Jalpaiguri, the petitioner has filed the present revision petition.
3. The petitioner herein is the plaintiff in Money Suit No.31 of 2014. The petitioner has filed an application for prosecuting D.W.1 for giving false evidence before the Court. On 22.2.2023 during the course of cross-examination of DW1, the learned counsel for the petitioner insisted the learned trial Judge by filing application to record certain answers given by the DW1. The said petition was taken up by the learned trial Judge and upon hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, rejected the same in limine as the same is devoid of merits. Challenging the same, the petitioner has filed the present revision petition.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the learned trial Judge has failed to arrive at a just and fair decision after going through the petition, records, documents and legal principles of law. The learned trial Judge misinterpreted the existing law and has also failed to notice the scope and object of the petition and, in fact, the learned trial Judge has not exercised his jurisdiction to do justice. The finding of the learned trial Judge is completely arbitrary and the learned trial Judge ought to have exercised the jurisdiction and also ought to have recorded the reply of DW1 during his cross-examination. He would submit that without considering the merits of the petition, the learned trial Judge rejected the prayer of the petitioner. The order dated 22.2.2023 is illegal and, therefore, the same is liable to be set aside.
5. Heard the submissions of the learned counsel for the respondents on the revision petition filed by the petitioner.
6. It appears that on 31.1.2023, during the course of examination of D.W.1, the petitioner/plaintiff has filed an application for prosecuting the DW1 for giving false evidence before the Court stating that on 17.1.2023, DW1 on oath tendered the evidence before the Court and he knowingly and intentionally gave false evidence in relation to Ex.No.1 and had also intentionally denied his earlier statement made before the learned Judicial Magistrate. Alleging that DW1 has committed offences under Sections 177, 181 and 182 of the IPC and he should be punished under the aforesaid provisions for not deposing truly and giving false evidence to cause injury to the petitioner, the petitioner has filed the petition.
7. As could be seen from the records, on 22.2.2023, the suit was taken up for cross-examination of DW1 and the cross-examination of DW1 is in part.
8. According to the petitioner, while cross-examining DW1, the learned counsel for the petitioner has put a question to DW1 suggesting whether he made certain statements in his written examination in chief. However, the learned trial Judge refused to entertain such question as it is a matter of record and not relevant in view of the provisions of the Indian Evidence Act. At that stage, the learned counsel for the petitioner filed a petition alleging that the learned trial Judge refused to record certain deposition of the DW1 and, in the interest of justice, the learned trial Judge should have recorded such deposition.
9. The said request made by the petitioner has been considered by the learned trial Judge and rejected in limine. The operative portion of the order of the learned trial Judge is quoted hereunder for ready reference:
“The petition filed by the Ld. Advocate for the plaintiff is considered and rejected in limini as it is devoid of merit.
In the aforesaid petition Ld. Advocate for the plaintiffs made certain tacit aspersions against the presiding officer of this court. As such, the matter is adjourned for the day and this court fixes next date in this suit after six months from this day with liberty to t
