10.03.2025 Ct. No.22 pg.

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CIVIL REVISIONAL JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE CO 2832 of 2007 Biswanath Samanta Vs.

Sree Sree Sitalamata & Sree Manashamata Thakurani represented by its Sebaits, Sri Susanta Budak & Ors.

Mr. Anit Kumar Das Ms. Rupsha Chakraborty Mr. Asish Dutta … For the petitioner

1. Supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioner is taken on record.

2. None appears on behalf of the opposite parties.

3. This revisional application has been preferred assailing an order no.26 dated 21st July, 2007 passed in connection with Title Suit No.49 of 2005 wherein the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), 1st Court, Arambag refused the prayer for recording evidence in the question and answer form.

4. Learned Trial Judge observed that Section 138 of the Evidence Act, examination and cross-examination must relate to relevant facts only and no cross- examination can be permitted on the issue which has already been admitted in the pleadings.

Trial Judge refused to accept the prayer of the application dated 18th September, 2007 and fixed a date for cross-

examination of DW-1.

6. Mr. Anit Kumar Das, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has submitted that the plaintiff /petitioner herein has sought for further cross- examination of DW-1. It has further been submitted that an opportunity should be given to the plaintiff/petitioner herein to cross-examine the DW-1.

7. So far as the recording of evidence is concerned, in my opinion, it entirely depends on the discretion of the Court to record evidence either in question and answer form or in the narrative form. It has not been disputed by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner that examination and cross-examination should relate to the relevant facts.

8. However, it takes me aback that this revisional application is pending since 2007 only on the issue of recording of evidence either in the form of question and answer or not.

do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order.

10. Learned Trial Judge is requested to give an opportunity to the plaintiff/petitioner herein to cross-

examine DW-1 on a date fixed by the learned Judge.

11. Learned Trial Judge is also requested to dispose of this case, which is pending since 2007, as expeditiously as possible without granting any unnecessary adjournment to any of the parties.

12. With the aforesaid observation, the revisional application stands disposed of.

13. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.

14. All parties shall act on the basis of a server copy of this order duly downloaded from the official website of this Court.

15. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties, upon compliance of necessary formalities.

(Bibhas Ranjan De, J.)