The High Court, Ranchi, allowed a writ petition quashing an order rejecting the petitioners' prayer to produce a party claiming to be a widow as a witness in a pending title suit for declaration of dependents.
The impugned order dated 29.05.2018 was set aside, and the petitioners were directed to produce the witness within three weeks.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI (Civil Writ Jurisdiction)
W.P.(C). No.3164 of 2018
1. Nilmoni Hansda
2. Somlal Marandi
3. Sarajan Marandi …. …. Petitioners
Versus
1. Kalo Soren
2. Minor Shibnath Marandi
3. Union of India through G.M. Eastern Railway, Garden Reach, Kolkata, West Bengal.
4. Divisional Railway manager, Eastern Railway, Asansol, P.O. & P.S. – Asansol, District-Burdwan (West Bengal).
5. Divisional Personnel Officer, Eastern Railway, Asansol, P.O. & P.S. – Asansol, District-Burdwan (West Bengal).
…. …. Respondents
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR
---For the Petitioners : Mr. Kaushik Sarkhel, Adv. For the Respondent : Mr. Samavesh Bhanj Deo, Adv.
08/Dated: 04th January, 2023
1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
2. The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the impugned order dated 29.05.2018 whereby and whereunder the petition filed by the petitioners for re-calling the order dated 06.02.2018 was dismissed in connection with Title Suit No.64 of 2010, pending in the court of the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division)-I, Jamtara.
3. It appears that Title Suit No.64 of 2010 has been filed by the Respondent Nos.1 and 2 for declaration that they are legally wedded wife and son of the deceased employee. The present petitioners are also claiming as to be the wife and sons of the deceased employee. It appears that the evidence has been closed for the defendants on 12.02.2018 and thereafter school register has been demanded.
4. A petition has been filed for producing one of the defendants namely Nilmoni Hansda who is claiming herself to be the widow of the deceased employee as a witness. The said prayer has been rejected by the impugned order.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the title suit is declaratory in nature and both the parties are claiming themselves to be the wife/widow and dependents of the deceased employee. The parties as witness are necessary for proper disposal of the case. It cannot be denied if they want to enter into the witness box. Further, since they are parties no prejudice will be caused as it could not change the nature of the case. The court is always supposed to find out the truth to decide the claim of the parties. On the above basis, the impugned order has been challenged.
6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the other side has supported the impugned order and it has been submitted that reasoned order has been passed since the petition has been filed after closure of the evidence and as such it has rightly been rejected. Unnecessary delay is being caused. Widow of the deceased employee is suffering.
7. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and from perusal of the records, it appears that both the parties are claiming to be wives/widows and sons of the deceased employee and declaratory suit has been filed solely for the purpose of getting retiral benefits or service dues of the deceased employee. The prayer has been made for allowing one of the widows to be examined as a witness. She has volunteered to be a witness and this right cannot be denied.
8. Considering the nature of dispute between the parties and material available on record especially the fact that the witness produced by the impugned application is one of the parties of the proceeding, I am inclined to allow the prayer of the petitioners. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 29.05.2018 is, hereby, set aside.
9. The petitioners are directed to produce the witness within three weeks from today. Other side is at liberty to cross-examine the witness.
10. With above observation and direction, the present writ petition stands disposed of.
(Rajesh Kumar, J.)
Amar/-
2
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the High Court can quash an order rejecting the prayer to produce a party claiming to be a widow as a witness in a title suit?
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Nilmoni Hansda
Somal Marandi
Sarajan Marandi
Kalo Soren
Minor Shibnath Marandi
Union of India
Rajesh Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
