Disposed¶15

Sk. Jahangir and Ors. v. Munni Begum and Ors.

Calcutta HC12 Mar 2024CO/285/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Keywords: CO 285 of 2024; Sk. Jahangir and others v. Munni Begum and others; decision dated March 12, 2024 (signature line s.biswas); challenge to orders dated November 18, 2023 and January 6, 2024 of the Civil Judge (Senior Division), 3rd Court, Alipore, South 24 Parganas in Misc. Case No.212 of 2016 arising out of Title Suit No.10 of 1966; adjournment application filed before regular court but not moved before Judge-in-Charge; evidence of PW1 closed; recall refused; one last chance to cross-examine PW1 within a month, peremptorily; impugned order set aside; revisional application disposed of; decree holders; opposite party nos.1 to 5.

What did the court decide?

Impugned orders set aside; petitioners granted one last chance to cross-examine PW1, to be completed within a month from the date fixed by the learned court, peremptorily.

Sk. Jahangir and Ors. Vs Munni Begum and Ors. — Calcutta HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

¶1

March 12, 2024 Sl. No.31 Court No.19 s.biswas

¶2

CO 285 of 2024

¶3

Sk. Jahangir and others vs. Munni Begum and others

¶4

Ms. Shohini Chakraborty Ms. Prajaaini Das

¶5

… for the petitioners Mr. Biswajib Ghosh Md. Hanif Mr. Sk. M. Ali

¶6

... for the opposite party nos.1 to 5

¶7

The petitioners challenge the orders dated November 18, 2023 and January 6, 2024 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), 3^rd Court at Alipore, South 24 Parganas acting as Judge-inCharge of Misc. Case No.212 of 2016. The Misc. Case 212 of 2016 arose out of Title Suit No.10 of 1966.

¶8

By the orders impugned, the learned court firstly rejected the application for adjournment of the misc. case and thereafter by the subsequent order dated January 6, 2024 refused to recall the order dated November 18, 2023. The evidence of PW1 was closed.

¶9

It appears that the misc. case was not before the regular court and the adjournment application which was filed before the regular court was not moved before the learned Judge-in-Charge. Accordingly, the learned Judge-in-Charge closed the evidence of PW1.

¶10

¶11

It is submitted that it was a mistake on the part of the learned advocate who did not move the adjournment application. The petitioners who are the decree holders in the suit of 1966, should not be deprived of the opportunity to cross-examine the PW1, who has filed the misc. case after 10 years from the decree.

¶12

I appreciate the contention of the petitioners and in my opinion, one last chance should be given to the petitioners to cross-examine PW1 and such cross-examination shall be completed within a month from the date fixed by the learned court, peremptorily.

¶13

The order impugned is set aside.

¶14

The revisional application is accordingly

¶15

disposed of.

¶16

All the parties are directed to act on the basis of the server copy of the order.

¶17

Urgent Photostat certified copies of this order, if applied for, be made available to the parties upon compliance with the requisite formalities.

Sk. Jahangir and Ors. v. Munni Begum and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sk. Jahangir and Ors. v. Munni Begum and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Suprakash Paul Vs Babli Paul

Amit Das and Anr. Vs Anal Deb Basu and Ors.

Dr Amit Kumar Das Vs Anita Manna

Subhendu Kr. Dutta Vs Prabir Dutta and Ors.

Nagma Begum Alias Rudrani Ritambhara Maiti Vs Ritambhar Maiti Alias Rishieraj Ritambhar Maiti

Sri Ram Dayal Shaw Vs Sri Indrajit Paul