Sl.23 05.08.2026 Court No.6 BP C.O. 2441 of 2026 Soma Mitra -versus- Sri Amaranth Banerjee & Anr. Mr. Arnab Roy Ms. Sayani Ahmed ..for the petitioner Mr. Prasanta Bishal ..for the opposite party This application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is at the instance of the defendant and is directed against an order being no. 77 dated 1st June, 2026 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), 2nd Court at Alipore, 24 Parganas (South) in Ejectment Suit No. 50 of 2014. By the order impugned the application under Order 18 Rule 16 of the Code of Civil Procedure stood allowed. Mr. Roy, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that the said application was allowed by a totally non-speaking order. The learned advocate appearing for the opposite party submits that the wife of the landlord plaintiff was adducing evidence but challenging the same a civil revisional application is pending before this Court. He submits that for such reason the application under Order 18 Rule 16 of the Code of Civil Procedure was filed for examination of the sister of the plaintiff in the meantime. 2 Order 18 Rule 16 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides that where a witness is about to leave the jurisdiction of the Court, or other sufficient cause is shown to the satisfaction of the Court why his evidence should be taken immediately, the Court may, upon the application of any party or of the witness, at any time after the institution of the suit, take the evidence of such witness in the manner as provided in sub-section 2 and 3 of Order 18 Rule 16 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Though under Order 18 Rule 16 of the Code of Civil Procedure the court has the power to examine the witness immediately but only upon being satisfied that sufficient cause is shown why the evidence should be taken immediately. In the case on hand the learned trial judge only recorded that the plaintiff and the defendant are senior citizens and for the speedy disposal of the case the PW-2 is a senior citizen and aged about eighty years old should be examined immediately. It does not appear from the impugned order that any materials in support of the fact that the P.W.-2 was suffering from various ailments was also produced before the Court. Merely because of the fact that the case is pending for a long time that cannot be a ground for invocation of power under Order 18 Rule 16 of the Code of Civil Procedure. However, since the order impugned is a non-speaking order, this Court is inclined to interfere with the same. Accordingly, the order impugned is set aside only for the ground that the same is 3 an unreasoned order. The application under Order 18 Rule 16 of the Code of Civil Procedure stands restored to the file of the learned learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), 2nd Court at Alipore, 24 Parganas (South). The learned trial judge is directed to consider the said application afresh in accordance with law and dispose of the same as expeditiously as possible but preferably within a period of four weeks from the next date fixed without granting any unnecessary adjournments to either of the parties. With the above observations, C.O. 2441 of 2026 stands disposed of. There shall be, however, no order as to costs. Urgent certified photocopy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties expeditiously on compliance of usual legal formalities. (Hiranmay Bhattacharyya, J.)