31.08.2026 Item no.D/L 24 Court No. 551 Pradip, A.R.(Ct.) In the High Court at Calcutta Civil Revisional Jurisdiction Appellate Side Case No. CO 2538 of 2023 In the matter of : Sri Sankar Prasad Paul …. Petitioner VS. Sri Gopal Pal ….Opposite Party For the Petitioner: Mr. Sk. Rejaul Alam Mr. Subodh Ranjan Roy ….Advocates For the Opposite Party: Mr. R. Mahato Mr. A. Sarkar ….Advocates 1. The instant revisional application has been filed by the present petitioner who is the plaintiff in Title Suit No. 102 of 2013 challenging an Order No. 181 dated May 17, 2023. 2. By the impugned order the learned Trial Court refused the prayer of the present petitioner seeking examination of PW 1 on recall. 3. The present petitioner filed Title Suit No. 102 of 2013 against the opposite parties seeking partition of the properties. 4. According to the case made out by the present petitioner/plaintiff one Sudarshan Pal had two wives and after the death of his first wife, Annadabala Pal he married defendant no. 1, that is, Sandhya Rani Pal. After the death of Sudarshan Pal, the plaintiff/petitioner together with Pratima Samanta Pal and Sushma Rani Karan inherited the Page 2 property of said Sudarshan Pal. The plaintiff filed the suit for partition of the suit properties claiming one fifth share of the suit property. 5. It was further stated that on January 4, 2012 the plaintiff filed an application before the Sub Divisional Officer, Midnapore under the Right to Information Act which was duly replied by the Sub Divisional Officer, Midnapore. 6. According to such reply to the RTI application, the petitioner came to know that Binode Behari Dutta, the first husband of the defendant no. 1 died on February 3, 2001. 7. By filing an application for recall of PW 1, the plaintiff/petitioner proposed to bring on record the information so received under the RTI Act incorporating the date of death of the husband of defendant no.1. 8. Such application was disposed of by the impugned order upon objection by the opposite parties. The prayer of the petitioner for recall of PW 1 in Title Suit No. 102 of 2013 was rejected. 9. It is submitted on behalf of the learned advocate for the petitioner that the learned Trial Court was not justified in refusing the prayer for recall of PW 1. Such an order was passed without applying judicial mind. 10. Learned advocate for the petitioner also submits that the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code do not prescribe any period of limitation for filing an application as rejected by the learned Trial Court. 11. He further submits that due to inadvertence, the documents sought to be brought into evidence was not Page 3 confronted to PW 1 and ultimately it was not admitted on evidence on behalf of the plaintiff in the title suit. 12. On the other hand, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the opposite parties submits that the documents sought to be brought on record by the petitioner/plaintiff was in his custody all along since 2012. But the plaintiff/petitioner chose not to produce it and get it admitted in evidence before the learned Trial Court. 13. Learned advocate for the opposite parties also submits that the evidence of PW 1 on recall was done twice one in the year 2017 and the other in 2023. 14. Nevertheless, the petitioner/plaintiff did not choose to bring on record the documents which he allegedly received by way of his application under the Right to Information Act in the year 2012. 15. He submits that the learned Trial Court was justified in refusing the prayer of the petitioner. 16. Having heard the submissions made on behalf of the learned advocate for the parties and on perusal of the impugned order, it appears that, by passing the impugned order, the learned Trial Court noted that the petitioner/plaintiff received the document sought to be brought on record as evidence in the title suit in the year 2012 by way of an application made under the RTI Act. 17. The learned Trial Court has also noted that there was an application praying for examination of PW 1 on recall on June 3, 2015. Such prayer of the petitioner was allowed Page 4 and in pursuance of such prayer PW 1 was examined on recall in the year 2017. 18. Learned Trial Court has also noted that the petitioner/plaintiff did not take any steps to bring on record the documents sought to be admitted in evidence during the period February 3, 2018 to February 3, 2023 in spite of being provided with ample opportunities by the learned Trial Court. 19. The petitioner/plaintiff was very much in possession of the documents which he sought to bring on record by his petition dated March 18, 2023. 20. It is evident from the materials on record that the petitioner was having the custody of the documents sought to be brought on record. A specific description of the documents sought to be brought on record is a death certificate of Binode Dutta issued by the appropriate authority. 21. As it transpires from the impugned order, the evidence on behalf of the plaintiff is yet to be concluded, such document, if a certified copy thereof is produced by the plaintiff/petitioner, would be a public document which the petitioner/plaintiff has the opportunity to prove in accordance with law. 22. Under such circumstances and considering the impugned order as well as the other facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any material to interfere with the impugned order. 23. Accordingly, CO 2538 of 2023 is dismissed. Page 5 24. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance of all requisite formalities. (Md. Shabbar Rashidi J.)