The main legal point established in the judgment is the scope and limitations of the power to recall a witness under Order XVIII Rule 17 and the inherent powers of the court under Section 151 of the CPC.

1. This petition by the legal heirs of Gopal Banerjee defendant No.2 before the trial Court is directed against the order dated 13th March, 2015 passed in Title Suit No.76 of 2006 whereby the learned trial Court rejected the application filed by the said petitioners under Order XVIII Rule 17A seeking permission to recall DW.1 who is in fact defendant No.2(a) with a view to produce certain documents. It may be pointed out at this stage that Ms. Paramita Dhar learned counsel for the petitioner at the stage of hearing of the petition very candidly stated that though the word ‘documents’ had been used in the application the only document which is sought to be exhibited is the plaint filed in Title Suit No.41 of 1978.

2. This case has a very long and chequered history. Title Suit No. 41 of 1978 was filed by Naresh Chandra Debbarma whose son Pritwish Debbarma was the original defendant No.1 in the suit and he was grandfather of respondents 2 to 5 in this petition. Defendant No.2 in the earlier suit was Gopal Banerjee the predecessor-in-interest of the present petitioners. It is not disputed that the land which is subject matter of Title Suit No.76 of 2006 out of which this revision petition arises was also part of the schedule land in the earlier Title Suit No.41 of 1978.

3. In the earlier suit Naresh Chandra Debbarma stated that he had made paper transaction selling his land to one Sachindra Debbarma and that Sachindra Debbarma had sold the land which is subject matter of the present suit to Gopal Banerjee. According to the Naresh Chandra Debbarma, though these sale deeds had been executed, the land was not transferred to the defendants and Naresh Chandra Debbarma continued to remain in possession of the suit land. It was also contended that the sale deeds were violative of the provisions of Tripura Land Revenue and Land Reforms Act, 1960 (for short TLR & LR ACT) and in as much as the sale deeds were executed by tribal in fabour of non-tribal. The said suit was dismissed. The appeal filed by the plaintiff was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge and Second Appeal No.10 of 1999 was filed before the Gauhati High Court which then exercised jurisdiction over the State of Tripura.

4. A learned single Judge of the said High Court dismissed the Second Appeal No.10 of 1999 on 14.6.2006 and rejected all the pleas raised by the original plaintiff Naresh Chandra Debbarma who had died and had been substituted by his son Pritwish Debbarma. The learned single Judge held that since the two registered sale deeds had been executed prior to the enforcement of the TLR & LR Act, 1960 these could not be set aside. This finding has not been challenged in any proceedings and operates as res judicata between the parties or on any parties claiming under them. The validity of the sale deeds has been upheld and cannot be the subject matter of any other litigation. The plea of the plaintiff Naresh Chandra Debbarma that he was in adverse possession of the suit land which he had sold was also rejected by the learned single Judge. Thereafter Sri Sankar Debbarma, respondent No.1 in the present petition, filed Title Suit 76 of 2006. In this suit Sankar Debbarma has claimed right from 1949 that the land in question has been in possession of his family, initially in the possession of his grandfather Kalachan Debbarma and that the possession of his family members is adverse to defendant No.1 i.e. Pritwish Debbarma son of the plaintiff in Title Suit No.41 of 1978.

5. According to the plaintiff, in the year 2006 some attempt was made to enter into the land by the defendant and therefore, he was compelled to file a suit and which suit was filed in the year 2006 itself. At this stage it would be pertinent to mention that in para 7 of the plaint, the plaintiff has stated that in the year 1978, the defendant No.1(Pritwish Debbarma) approached the plaintiff and asked him to vacate the suit land because defendant No.2(Gopal Banerjee) father of the prese