Remanded

Pushpa Das v. Swami Santananda@ Mangal Bhattacharjee and Ors.

Calcutta HC17 Nov 2022CO/734/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The single judge disposed of a revisional application, setting aside an order that prevented the petitioner from filing an application to recall a witness for correcting typographical mistakes in a deposition.

What did the court decide?

The order permitting the petitioner to file an appropriate application proposing recall of P.W.1 was set aside; the petitioner is directed to file the application within three weeks.

Pushpa Das Vs Swami Santananda@ Mangal Bhattacharjee… — Service and Employment | Calcutta HC (2022)

¶1

17.11.2022 Item No.5 Ct. No.7 CHC (disposed of)

¶2

C.O.734 of 2022

¶3

Smt. Pushpa Das Vs.

¶4

Swami Santananda @ Mangal Bhattacharjee & ors.

¶5

Mr. M. Goswami, Mr. P. Goswami

¶6

…for the petitioner

¶7

Mr. R. N. Chakraborty,

¶8

Mr. M. Ahmed

¶9

…for the opposite parties

¶10

Affidavit-of-service furnished by the petitioner be taken on record.

¶11

Some typographical mistakes, revealed in the cross-examination of P.W.1, have been sought to be corrected upon filing an application under Section 151 C.P.C., which by the order impugned, the court below has rejected the same.

¶12

Mr. Goswami, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that cross-examination of P.W.1 in Misc. Case No.118 of 2018 was done on 8^th February, 2021. After collection of the certified copy of deposition of P.W.1, some typographical mistakes could be detected with respect to some name disclosed by such witness (P.W.1.).

¶13

It is proposed by the petitioner that such correction is inevitable, otherwise there may be future complication.

¶14

¶15

Mr. Chakraborty, learned advocate appearing for the opposite parties submits that unless there be delay explained sufficiently, mere filing of the petition under Section 151 C.P.C. would not automatically provide instrument to petitioner for making necessary correction.

¶16

It is thus contended by the learned advocate for the opposite parties that appropriate application should have been filed for doing necessary correction, if necessary upon taking leave of the Court.

¶17

Having considered the submission of both sides, it appears that correction in respect of the name disclosed by P.W.1 during cross-examination on 8^th February, 2021, has been proposed, for the same being inadvertently typed. Such mistake could be detected after collection of the certified copy. There is hardly any scope for any further elaboration.

¶18

The revisional application stands disposed of upon setting aside the impugned order permitting the petitioner to file an appropriate application proposing to recall of P.W.1, setting forth the grounds requiring correction, and the question to be put in crossexamination for the necessary correction in the evidence of P.W.1, adduced on 8^th February, 2021. Such exercise, may be made within three weeks from the date of communication of this order, upon supplying a copy well in advance to the opposite

¶19

¶20

parties. If such application is filed, that may be duly decided in accordance with law so that the necessary correction, if there is any necessity to be corrected, the same may be ensured in accordance with law.

¶21

With this observation/direction, the revisional application stands disposed of.

¶22

Parties are directed to make communication of this order to the court below.

¶23

Urgent certified photostat copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties as expeditiously as possible on compliance of all necessary formalities.

¶24

(Subhasis Dasgupta, J.)

Pushpa Das v. Swami Santananda@ Mangal Bhattacharjee and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pushpa Das v. Swami Santananda@ Mangal Bhattacharjee and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nasir Sekh and Ors. Vs Monbhul Sekh @ Samsul Hoque and Ors.

Sk Majnu Hossain and Another Vs Faridpur Jama Masjid Repd by Sk Abdul Hossain and Others

Sumitra Kumar Singh Vs Anila G. Ojha and Ors.

Niyati Patar @ Patra and Ors. Vs Biswajit Singha and Ors.

Sushila Mishra and Anr. Vs Chandan Sahu and Anr.

Kaushik Bhattacharjee Vs Chandrani Bhattacharjee