IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

CIVIL REVISIONAL JURISDICTION

APPELLATE SIDE

Present:-

HON’BLE JUSTICE CHAITALI CHATTERJEE DAS.

CO 2954 OF 2024

TAPAN KUMAR GHOSH

VS

SMT. SIMA GHOSH

For the Petitioner : Mr. Sounak Bhattacharya, Adv.

Mr. Sounak Mondal, Adv. Mr. Abhirup Halder, Adv.

Ms. Bipasha Bhattacharya, Adv.

For the Opposite

Party : Mr. Sourav Sen, Adv.

Ms. A. Chbakraborty, Adv. Ms. S. Bhattacharya, Adv.

Last heard on : 01.09.2025 Judgement on : 03.09.2025

CHAITALI CHATTERJEE DAS, J. :-

1. This revisional application is directed against an order dated July 4, 2024

passed by. Learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court number 2, in Mat SUIT No. 36 of 2013, whereby the application was filed to recall the witness dated March 9, 2023 filed on behalf of the wife /Opposite Party under

Order 18 Rule 17 CPC has been allowed.

2. The case of the petitioner/husband in a nut shell is that the suit for dissolution of marriage under Section 13 of the Hindu marriage act was filed by the present petitioner against the Opposite Party/wife on the ground of cruelty and desertion as has been registered as Mat Suit no 36 of 2013.The Opposite Party entered appearance and filed written statement and thereafter the matter was fixed for peremptory hearing of the suit. The petitioner/husband deposed as P.W.1 and was examined in full and discharged, and she was also cross examined and discharged. After that the suit was fixed at the argument stage when the opposite party filed an application under Order 18 Rule 17 of the Civil Procedure Code to recall the P.W.1 for the purpose of exhibiting the letter dated September 28, 1994, which was marked ‘M’ for identification .

3. It is the case of the petitioner that earlier the opposite party filed a similar application for recall of the evidence of this petitioner, but the same was withdrawn being not pressed and also without any leave to file a fresh on the self-same cause of action. The application filed under Order 18, Rule 17 of CPC was heard at length by the learned trial court and by an order dated July 4, 2024 allowed the said application, thereby recalling the evidence of your petitioner. Being aggrieved by this revisional application is filed.

4. The learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner argued that the learned trial judge acted illegally and with material irregularity without appreciating that a party cannot be permitted to fill up the lacuna in evidence under the garb of an application under Order 18 Rule 17 of the Code. It is further argued that when the said letter was produced while adducing evidence the present petitioner raised objection and the letter was not marked with exhibit and was put as “M” for identification and therefore after completion of the evidence, the plaintiff can in no way, pray for placing the said document before the defendant for the purpose of exhibiting the said document. In this regard, a decision has been relied upon by the learned advocate representing the petitioner reported in Gyanti Devi and others versus Shanti Devi,, (2012) 3 Cal LT 404 where after the examination in chief was tendered along with certain documents marked exhibit, an application under Section 151 of CPC was filed praying for expunging the documents marked as an exhibit on admission, save and accept two items. Those documents were not filed along with the plaint and at the time of tendering, those documents, specific objection was raised relating to the admissibility of those documents. The point as to whether the civil court should decide the objection as to the proof and admissibility of the document at the time when such document is tendered in evidence or should postpone the same to be considered at the time of the argument after tentatively marking the document as exhibit subject to the objection. The co-ordinate single bench of this Court observed ;

20;However, Order 11, Rule 12 of the code entitled any party to the proceeding to apply to the Court for an order, directing the other party t