HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA

AGARTALA

CRP 6 of 2021

Kajal Roy

----Petitioner(s)

Versus

Prasenjit Roy and Ors. .

----Respondent(s)

For Petitioner(s)

: Mr. A. Sengupta, Adv.

For Respondent(s)

: None.

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S. TALAPATRA

Order

08.01.2021

Heard Mr. A. Sengupta, learned counsel appearing for the

petitioner.

[2]

This is a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of

India from the order dated 20.06.2020 delivered in Title Suit 89 of

2016 by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Court No.1, West Tripura,

Agaratla rejecting the application filed by the petitioner for allowing

him to adduce one witness whose name was not catalogued in the list

produced before the hearing commenced. The said application was

filed under Order 16, Rule 1 of the CPC. The petitioner had also

approached this court earlier by filing a petition under Article 227 of

the Constitution of India against the order dated 21.05.2019 on the

identical issue being CRP 100 of 2019. In that petition, the order

rejecting the similar petition dated 19.03.2019 was challenged

inasmuch by the said order dated 21.05.2019, the petitioner‟s prayer

to examine a witness whose name was not included in the list of

Page 2 of 8

witnesses as required under the provision of Order 6, Rule 1 of the

CPC was rejected. While disposing CRP No.100 of 2019, this court

had occasion to observe that the petitioner may file a fresh

application pointing out the grounds why such liberty i.e. to adduce

another witness should be granted to him. It has been categorically

observed that at least minimum ground had to be set out to show

“the relevance of the witness” before his examination could be

sought. However, the right of the plaintiff, in this respect, if the

witness is vital may not be taken away permanently.

[3]

Having observed thus, the petitioner was allowed to

withdraw the said application dated 19.03.2019 and to file a fresh

application for the same purpose citing proper reason. Such

application was directed to be filed within a period of one week from

the day of the order.

[4]

Mr. A. Sengupta, learned counsel appearing for the

petitioner has submitted that within the stipulated date such

application was filed stating inter alia:

“5. That on 16.06.2015 plaintiff went to Udaipur and

taking opportunity of his absence, the defendants No.1

and 2 in collusion with the defendant No. 3 trespassed

into the “B” scheduled land denying the right, title and

interest of the plaintiff thereover despite vehement

objection from the wife of the plaintiff and occupied a

portion thereof measuring 2 gandas approximately

described more particularly in schedule “A” of the

plaintiff which is the suit land of the present suit.

6. That when the defendants trespassed into the suit

land at that time said witness was present, he was

going to his tailoring shop by the side of the suit land

and watching the situation he informed the matter to

the wife of the plaintiff who then rushed to the spot and

raised vehement objection against the illegal activities

of the defendants and plaintiff was out of station on

that day, he was at Udaipur at the relevant time and as

Page 3 of 8

such witness of the plaintiff Shri Samir Das is a vital

witness and is the eye witness of the incident and his

evidence is vital for deciding the factual matter of the

case and as such leave may be granted for examination

of the said witness as PW3.

Xerox copy of the order dated 26.11.2019

passed by the Hon’ble High Court in CRP No.100 of

2019 is annexed hereto.”

[Emphasis added]

[5]

But the Civil Judge, Senior Division, West Tripura,

Agartala has rejected the said application having due regard to the

application made in terms of the the order dated 26.11.2019

delivered in CRP 100 of 2019. It has observed inter alia in the

impugned order as follow