Court No. 6 (265719) 02.09.2026 (AD 30-31) (S. Banerjee) CO 2778 of 2026 Anwar Hossain Vs. Rajendra Singh & Ors. with CO 678 of 2026 Mr. Dilip Kumar Maiti Ms. Maitryee Maiti …for the petitioner Mr. Abhijit Ray Mr. Santu Mandy …for the opposite-party no. 1 Re: CO 678 of 2026 This application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is at the instance of the plaintiff and is directed against orders dated August 27, 2025 and January 22, 2026 both passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), 1st Court at Alipore in Title Suit No. 795 of 2019. By the order dated August 27, 2025 the application dated February 27, 2025 filed by the plaintiff/petitioner, stood rejected. The petitioner filed an application under Section 152 of the Civil Procedure Code for correction of the clerical errors which are alleged to have taken place in the order dated January 22, 2026. 2 Learned advocate appearing for the petitioner draws the attention of the Court to the evidence of the DW-2 in support of his contention that the evidence of the Finance Manager of the Hospital is necessary for the purpose of adjudication of the disputes involved in the suit. Heard the learned advocate appearing for the opposite party on such submission. Record reveals that the DW-2 was cross- examined in full on January 21, 2025 and the evidence of the defendant stood closed and the document was marked as Exhibit 9 with objection. At that point of time the petitioner filed a petition praying for adducing evidence of one Sudhir Agarwal (Finance Manager) and for issuance of summons to witness. The order dated January 21, 2025 records that such prayer is considered and allowed and February 27, 2025 was fixed for further evidence of PW-2. On February 27, 2025 the defendants/opposite-parties filed an application praying for recalling of the order dated January 21, 2025 on the ground that the defendants did not get any opportunity to raise any objection against the petition filed by the plaintiff/petitioner on January 21, 2025. The learned trial judge after being satisfied that the defendants/opposite-parties did not have any 3 opportunity to raise objection against the petition dated January 21, 2025, was of the opinion that the defendant/petitioner should get an opportunity to place his version on the next date and April 16, 2025 was fixed for hearing of the petition dated February 27, 2025 filed by the defendant/opposite-party for recalling of the order dated January 21, 2025. The hearing of the application dated February 27, 2025 was taken up on August 27, 2025. The learned trial judge by an order dated August 27, 2025 held that the prayer of the petitioner to adduce further evidence was only to fill up the lacunae in evidence adduced by the plaintiff. The learned trial judge observed that the necessity of calling such witness ought to be placed during the evidence of the plaintiff’s witness and subsequent placing is not a healthy practice and the same should be rejected. The petitioner thereafter filed an application under Section 152 of the Civil Procedure Code praying for correction of the clerical errors which are alleged to have been taken place while recording the order dated August 27, 2025. Such application was rejected on the ground that the plaintiff ought to have challenged the order dated August 27, 2025 before a superior forum. Thereafter the petitioner has challenged both the orders before this Court. 4 Petitioner has filed a suit praying for a decree for damages against the defendants. After going through the averments made in the plaint and the material on record this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner could not make out any case as to why the evidence of the Finance Manager, namely, Sudhir Agarwal is necessary for the purpose of deciding the dispute in this suit. It is now well-settled that filling up the lacunae in cross-examination is not permissible. That apart, the necessity to issue witness summons upon the Finance Manager could not be established. The learned trial judge assigned cogent reasons in rejecting the prayer of the petitioner for calling Sudhir Agarwal as a witness to adduce evidence on behalf of the plaintiff. In view of the reasons stated hereinbefore this Court is not inclined to interfere with the order impugned. Accordingly, CO 678 of 2026 stands disposed of. Re: CO 2778 of 2026 This application is at the instance of the plaintiff and is directed against the order dated August 7, 2026 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), 1st Court at Alipore in Title Suit No. 795 of 2019. By 5 the said order the application under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of the Civil Procedure Code stood rejected. The learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that the Finance Manager of the Hospital is a necessary party in the suit in view of the evidence of the DW-2. Record reveals that the petitioner initially made an attempt to issue witness summons to Sudhir Agarwal, i.e., the Finance Manager of Kothari Medical Centre to adduce evidence. Such application was rejected and this Court has affirmed the order rejecting the prayer of the petitionr for adducing evidence of Sudhir Agarwal by an order passed today (i.e., September 2, 2026) in CO 678 of 2026. It appears to this Court that after the attempt of the petitioner to call Sudhir Agarwal as a witness proved futile, the petitioner thereafter made an attempt to implead the Finance Manager as a party defendant to the suit. After going through the application under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of the Civil Procedure Code this Court finds that the petitioner could not make out any acceptable case as to why the Finance Manager of Kothari Medical Centre is either a necessary party or a proper party in the instant suit. 6 The learned trial judge was right in rejecting the application for addition of the Finance Manager as a party-defendant in the said suit. This Court is not inclined to interfere with such order. Accordingly, CO 2778 of 2026 stands disposed of. The learned trial judge is requested to dispose of Title Suit No. 795 of 2019 as expeditiously as possible without granting any unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties. (Hiranmay Bhattacharyya, J.)