ORDER :

PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India, pleased to set aside the Fair Order and Decreetal Order in E.A.No.15 of 2022 in E.A.No.6 of 2021 in E.P.No.128 of 2017 in Calcutta High Court C.S.No.196 of 2005 dated 11.08.2022 on the file of the 1st Additional District Judge at Thiruvallur and to dismiss the said application with costs throughout.

Aggrieved by an order allowing a petition to lead oral evidence and mark documentary evidence in a review application, the petitioner has come up by way of this revision.

2. The 1st respondent herein is a transferee decree holder in C.S.No.196 of 2005 on the file of the High Court of Calcutta. The 1st respondent herein filed Execution Petition against the revision petitioners and other respondents in E.P.No.128 of 2017. In the said Execution Petition an exparte order was passed against the revision petitioners on 22.10.2008, thereafter the revision petitioners filed an application to set aside the exparte order in E.A.No.48 of 2017. The said E.A.No.48 of 2017 was allowed by the Executing Court by order dated 18.11.2020. Aggrieved by the said order, the 1st respondent herein filed a review petition in E.A.No.6 of 2021 seeking to review the order dated 18.11.2020 passed in E.A.No.48 of 2017. In the said review application, the 1st respondent filed a petition in E.A.No.15 of 2022 seeking leave of the Court to lead oral evidence and mark documents in E.A.No.6 of 2022. Precisely it was the case of the 1st respondent that in a petition to set aside the exparte order filed by the revision petitioners in E.A.No.48 of 2017, he (1st respondent) marked Exs.R1 to R23 without examining any witnesses. Therefore, he wants to mark said documents in review application by leading oral evidence. The relevant averment of the 1st respondent in paragraph 21 of the affidavit filed in E.A.No.15 of 2022 is as follows:

“21. I humbly state that on the side of the decree holder in E.A.No.48 of 2017, without examining any witness, Exhibits R1 to R23 have been marked. Now, I want to mark the above said Exhibits R1 to R23 on the side of the decree holder by filing proof affidavit and providing copy of the same to the other side and examining myself orally by getting into the witness box.”

The reading of extract of the 1st respondent's affidavit would make it clear that at the time of contesting the petition to set aside the exparte order filed by the revision petitioner, he failed to lead oral evidence and mark his documents namely R1 to R23 through witness. Now to cure the defect in his review application, he wants to lead oral evidence and mark those documents again through witness. The said application was allowed by the Court below and aggrieved by the same the petitioners are before this Court by way of revision.

3. The learned senior counsel for the petitioners assailed the order passed by the Court below mainly on the ground that leading of oral evidence and marking of documents already marked in a review petition is unknown to law and it would enlarge the limited scope of the review application. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the judgment reported in MANU/SC/1013/2022, S.Madhusudhan Reddy versus V.Narayana Reddy and Ors., for explaining the limited scope of the review jurisdiction.

4. The learned senior counsel for the respondents vehemently contended by taking this Court to Rule 143 and 147 of Civil Rules of Practice, the documents cannot be admitted in evidence without it is being proved by a competent witness. According to the learned senior counsel, in the case on hand, neither the revision petitioners nor the contesting 1st respondent marked documents by leading oral evidence at the time of enquiry of E.A.No.48 of 2017, which was filed by revision petitioners to set aside the exparte order passed in main E.P. Therefore, in order to cure the defect, the 1st respondent filed the instant application seeking leave of the Court to lead oral evidence and