Ashok Kumar Jaiswal Vs Tapan Dey and Anr. — Writ and Judicial Review | Calcutta HC (2025)

Ashok Kumar Jaiswal Vs Tapan Dey and Anr. — Writ and Judicial Review | Calcutta HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Interference with the impugned orders: Order No.112 dated November 29, 2024 set aside insofar as it rejected the additional written statement and closed the evidence of P.W.1, the remaining portions of that order being left intact; trial judge directed to accept the additional written statement and permit cross-examination of P.W.1, whom the opposite party must produce on the next date fixed; suit to be proceeded with expeditiously, preferably concluded by the end of June 2026 without unnecessary adjournments; no order as to costs.

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner-defendant satisfactorily explained the delay in filing the additional written statement in Title Suit No.1253 of 2009, so as to warrant interference with the trial court's rejection thereof. +1 more

Court's answer

The petitioner, having annexed the medical documents of his learned advocate who suffered illness and underwent bypass surgery, has satisfactorily explained the delay in filing the additional written statement.

Ratio / Principle

A litigant who has engaged a lawyer has to depend upon the advocate for drafting pleadings, evidence and conducting cross-examination; the litigant thus bears the consequence of the advocate's illness in explaining the delay.

Key takeaways

The Court is inclined to interfere with the orders impugned, and Order No.112 dated November 29, 2024 is set aside insofar as it rejected the additional written statement and closed the evidence of P.W.1.ratio¶16
Other portions of the order dated November 29, 2024 were expressly left undisturbed by this Court.ratio¶18
The learned trial judge was directed to accept the additional written statement of the petitioner, and the petitioner was permitted to cross-examine P.W.1 on the next date fixed.ratio

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Constitution of India, Art. 227 — City Civil Court at Calcutta (10th Bench), Title Suit No.1253 of 2009 — defendant-petitioner's additional written statement rejected as belated and cross-examination of P.W.1 closed by Order No.112 dated 29.11.2024 — delay satisfactorily explained through medical documents showing the conducting advocate's illness and bypass surgery; a litigant must depend on the advocate for drafting pleadings, evidence and cross-examination — Order No.112 set aside to that extent only, its other portions untouched — trial court directed to accept the additional written statement and permit cross-examination of P.W.1, whom the opposite party is to produce on the next date — disposal of suit expedited preferably by end of June 2026 — no order as to costs.

M/L- 848 11/09/2025 Ct. No.-6 Aritra

C.O. 615 of 2025

Ashok Kumar Jaiswal Vs. Tapan Dey & Anr.

Mr. Arun Pahari Mr. Arkajyoti Pahari Ms. Gargi Maity Mr. A. Mandi

.…for the petitioner

Mr. Anirban Roy ….for the opposite party No.1

This application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is at the instance of the defendant and is directed against the orders being Nos.111 and 112 dated August 14, 2024 and November 29, 2024, both passed by the learned Judge, 10^th Bench, City Civil Court at Calcutta in Title Suit No.1253 of 2009.

By the order dated August 14, 2024, the prayer for adjournment was rejected. By the order dated November 29, 2024, the additional written statement was rejected as the same was filed at a belated stage. By the said order, the cross-examination of P.W.1 was also closed.

The learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that the prayer for adjournment was made on the ground that the learned advocate, who was conducting the case of the petitioner before the learned trial judge was ill and he had to undergo a bypass surgery. He submits that on account of the illness of the

2

learned advocate of the petitioner the additional written statement could not be drafted within time.

The learned advocate for the opposite party vehemently opposes the prayer of the petitioner. He submits that the petitioner intentionally caused delay in filing the additional written statement. The petitioner also took an adjournment on frivolous ground and refused to cross-examine the P.W.1 and for such reason the learned trial judge was right in closing the crossexamination of P.W.1.

After going through the materials on record, this Court finds that the petitioner has annexed the medical documents of the learned advocate. It appears therefrom that the learned advocate was suffering from illness and also had to undergo a bypass surgery. The petitioner had engaged a lawyer to conduct his case. A litigant has to depend upon the advocate for the purpose of drafting pleadings, evidence and for conducting the crossexamination.

Thus, this Court is, therefore, of the considered view that the petitioner has satisfactorily explained the delay in filing the additional written statement.

For all the reasons as aforesaid, this Court is inclined to interfere with the orders impugned.

Accordingly, the order being No.112 dated November 29, 2024 insofar as it relates to rejection of the additional written statement and for closing the evidence of P.W.1 is concerned is set aside. It is, however, made

3

clear that other portions of the order dated November 29, 2024 is not interfered with by this Court.

The learned trial judge is directed to accept the additional written statement of the petitioner. The petitioner shall be permitted to cross-examine the P.W.1 on the next date fixed.

The opposite party is directed to produce the P.W.1 on the next date fixed before the learned trial judge.

With the above observations and directions, CO 615 of 2025 stands disposed of.

The learned trial judge is requested to proceed with the suit in accordance with law and make an endeavour to dispose of the same as expeditiously as possible but preferably by the end of June, 2026 without granting any unnecessary adjournments to either of the parties.

There will be no order as to costs.

Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance with all requisite formalities.

(Hiranmay Bhattacharyya, J.)