Court No. 6 (265719) 25.09.2025 (AD 73) (S. Banerjee) CO 3574 of 2025 Saswati Banerjee nee Mukherjee Vs. Kumardip Banerjee Mr. Aditya Mondal …for the petitioner Mr. Ashok Banerjee, Sr. Advocate Mr. Subhajit Ray Mr. Sukhamoy Bhattacharya Mr. Shankar Mukherjee Ms. Atasi Sarkar Ms. Meghna Dhur Ms. Mayuri Ghosh …for the opposite party This application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is at the instance of the wife and is directed against the orders being no. 87 dated September 3, 2025 and order no. 82 dated July 15, 2025 both passed by the learned Additional District Judge, 13th Court at Alipore in MAT 123 of 2013. By the order impugned, the evidence of Dr. Sukumar Mukherjee, as a defendant witness was closed and Sourish Nanda, was directed to adduce further evidence as DW-2 on the next date fixed i.e., on September 24, 2025. Learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that the affidavit-in-chief could not be filed within the time limit fixed by this court, in an earlier round of litigation, for reasons beyond the control of the petitioner as DW-2, namely Dr. Sukumar Mukherjee was unwell. He submits that the petitioner prayed for extension of time to file such affidavit but the same was rejected by the order impugned. He submits that the petitioner be allowed an opportunity to adduce evidence of her father subject to any condition that may be fixed by this court. He further submits that Sourish Nanda who was allowed to adduce evidence on September 24, 2025 is not available in town and is presently outside the country. The learned advocate for the petitioner upon instruction from his client, submits that the petitioner shall not adduce the evidence of Sourish Nanda in future and the petitioner be permitted to allow her father to given evidence. Such submission of the petitioner through her learned advocate is placed on record. Mr. Banerjee, learned Senior Advocate for the opposite party vehemently opposes the prayer of the learned advocate appearing for the petitioner and submits that the petitioner tried to circumvent the order passed by this court by filing an application before the learned trial judge for extending the time 2 fixed by this court for filing of the affidavit-in-chief. He submits a time fixed by this court for doing an act cannot be extended by the learned trial judge. He further submits that the learned trial judge was right in rejecting the prayer for adducing the evidence of Dr. Sukumar Mukherjee as the affidavit-in-chief was not filed within the time limit. He further submits that the petitioner is trying to delay the hearing of the matrimonial suit by filing frivolous applications from time to time. After going through the materials on record this court finds that the affidavit-in-chief of Dr. Sukumar Mukherjee was not filed within the time limit fixed by this court. Thus the order passed by this Court was not complied with by the petitioner in its true letter and spirit. The learned trial judge was right in closing the evidence of Dr. Mukherjee. The learned judge was also justified in not allowing the prayer for recall of the order dated 15-07-2025 recording that there was violation of the order passed by this Court. However, any period fixed by the Court for doing of any act can be extended by such Court in its discretion. 3 Considering the fact that the evidence of Dr. Sukumar Mukherjee, who is the father of the petitioner, may be relevant for the purpose of deciding the instant matrimonial suit, this court is inclined to grant a last opportunity to the petitioner to adduce the evidence of Dr. Sukumar Mukherjee by extending the time fixed by this Court subject to payment of cost of Rs. 30,000/- to be paid by the petitioner to the opposite party on or before the next date fixed in the suit. It has been uniformly submitted by the learned advocates for the respective parties that October 24, 2025 is the next date fixed in the suit. Learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that the affidavit-in-chief of Dr. Sukumar Mukherjee is already on record but the same was not accepted as it was filed beyond the time limit fixed by this court. The learned trial judge is directed to accept the said affidavit-in-chief of Dr. Sukumar Mukherjee and allow him to adduce evidence in accordance with law subject to payment of the cost of Rs.30,000/- by the petitioner to the opposite party herein at least one day prior to the next date fixed in the suit. 4 As suggested by the learned advocates for the respective parties, Mr. Prantik Garai, a practicing learned advocate, Bar Library Club (2nd floor), High Court, Calcutta is appointed as the Commissioner for the purpose of recording the evidence of Dr. Sukumar Mukherjee at a venue to be amicably decided by the parties and the cost of such venue shall be paid by the petitioner. The fees of the Commissioner shall be decided by the learned trial judge while shall be paid by the petitioner. The learned trial judge is requested to fix a time frame to complete the recording of evidence of Dr. Mukherjee by the Commissioner. The learned trial judge is directed to proceed in accordance with law in the light of the aforesaid observations and directions and make an endeavor to dispose of the matrimonial suit as expeditiously as possible without granting any unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties. For all the reasons as aforesaid, the impugned orders stand modified only to the extent as indicated hereinabove. C.O 3575 of 2025 stands disposed of accordingly. 5 Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance with all requisite formalities. (Hiranmay Bhattacharyya, J.) 6