IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

Civil Revisional Jurisdiction

Appellate Side

Present:

The Hon’ble Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya

C.O. 3173 of 2025

Mrs. Kusum Sharma

Vs.

Debanand Mishra & Ors.

For the Petitioner : Mr. Arup Krishna Das

Mr. Rajarshi Ghosh

Mr. Utsav Ghatak

For the opposite party : Mr. Saurabh Guhathakurata

Mr. Abhratanu Sarkar

Mr. Partho Proteem Das

Heard on : 28/08/2025 Judgment on : 28/08/2025

Hiranmay Bhattacharyya , J. :

1. This application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is at

the instance of the plaintiff and is directed against the orders being Nos.118 and 122 dated July 5, 2025 and August 12, 2025 respectively both passed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Div.), 1^st Court at Asansol in Title Suit No.38

of 2009.

2. By the order being No.118 dated July 5, 2025 the application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure filed by the petitioner herein praying for permission to file certain documents for the purpose of marking the same as exhibit stood rejected. By the order No.122 dated August 12, 2025 the application filed by the petitioner under Order 18 Rule 17 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure praying for recalling of P.W.1 to put certain questions to him also stood rejected.

3. Mr. Das, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that one Sitaram Mishra (since deceased) was a tenant in respect of the property in question under the original plaintiff and upon his death his son, namely, Awadesh Mishra became the tenant. The said Awadesh Mishra subsequently surrendered the tenancy and left Asansol. He submits that the defendant/opposite party herein was allowed to carry on business in the suit property and the instant suit has been filed for eviction of the opposite party upon revocation of licence. He submits that upon the death of the original plaintiff, the petitioners, who are the substituted plaintiffs found certain documents to show that the tenancy was surrendered by Awadesh Mishra and for such purpose the petitioner filed an application praying for recalling of P.W.1 which was rejected by the orders impugned.

4. Mr. Das, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that the prayer for recalling of a witness can be permitted even at a belated stage and in support of such contention he places reliance upon a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of K.K. Velusamy vs. N.

Palanisamy, reported at (2011) 11 SCC 275

5. The learned advocate appearing for the opposite party submits that the petitioners were all along in possession of such documents and for reasons best known to the petitioner the copies of such documents were neither disclosed in the list of documents to be stated in the plaint and also at the stage of evidence. He further submits that the evidence of the parties have already been concluded and when the suit was fixed for argument, the petitioner filed the present application only to delay the instant suit.

6. The learned advocate appearing for the opposite party places reliance upon a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Bagai Construction vs. Gupta Building Material Store, reported at (2013) 14 SCC 1 in support of his contention that a party cannot be permitted to file application for recall of a witness in order to fill up the lacuna in evidence at the stage of argument.

7. Heard the learned advocates for the respective parties and perused the materials placed.

8. The petitioner filed a suit for eviction upon revocation of licence. It has been specifically stated in the plaint that one Sitaram Mishra (since deceased) was previously a tenant under the plaintiff in respect of the suit property and after his death his son, namely, Awadesh Mishra became the tenant under the plaintiff who voluntarily surrendered the tenancy and left Asansol 5/6 years back. It has been further stated in the plaint that the defendant was permitted to run a sweet meat shop in the suit premises. The petitioner requested the opposite party to quit and vacate the