16.09.2026 Court No.2 Item No.2 sudipta IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CIVIL REVISIONAL JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE CO 3855 of 2022 Nripotee Ranjan Das Vs. Satya Ranjan Das since deceased rep. by Sudipto Das & Ors. Mr. Dyutiman Banerjee Mr. Debjit Datta …for the petitioner Mr. Goutam Brahma Ms. Pampa Saha Mr. S. Chatterjee …for the opposite parties 1. Present petition has been filed challenging the order no. no. 46 dated 6th December, 2022 in Title Suit no. 589 of 2017 whereby the application of the petitioner / plaintiff for summoning the defendant no.2 as witness was rejected by the learned Trial Court. In backdrop the petitioner / plaintiff had filed a suit for declaration and injunction against the opposite parties claiming therein that the petitioner / plaintiff and defendant no.1 / opposite party who are the real brothers started a family business. Since the opposite party no.1 was a Government employee, the business was started in the name of defendant no.2 i.e. wife of defendant no.1. The partnership deed was executed between the plaintiff and defendant no.2. The plaintiff stated that the said joint business continued up to the 2 middle of the year 2000 and defendant no.2 withdrew Rs.4,50,000/- from the capital of the said business but did not reinvest the same despite several requests. Allegedly, the plaintiff and the son of the defendant, Sudipta Das, entered into an agreement in 1995 for taking sublease from Leena Bose of the land measuring about 3.10508 cottahs of plot no. 148 in Block HA in Sector –III of Salt Lake City and paid the sum out of the income of the said business. It was agreed that after getting requisite approvals the document will be registered in the name of the plaintiff and Sudipta Das. As per agreement the construction was raised in the name of said Leena Bose. The plaintiff’s case is that the construction was raised jointly up to first floor and where they began to live jointly. The disputes started after 1999 when the marriage of the plaintiff took place. 2. The plaintiff alleged that he was asked to vacate the house where he had half share. It was stated that the defendant granted license of the entire roof top of the first floor to the plaintiff. It was agreed that the plaintiff would not be evicted from the first floor where the plaintiff / petitioner raised construction at his own expenses. 3. The petitioner / plaintiff stated that later on it transpired that the Leena Bose has agreed to transfer /sublease of her land in the name of the defendants. It 3 was stated that plaintiff is in settled possession and the defendants were creating inference in the same. Plaintiff sought a declaration that the plaintiff granted irrevocable license over schedule ‘X’ property and sought an injunction against any hindrance / disturbance. The defendant no.1 filed a written statement refuting all the averments made in the suit. 4. During the pendency of the suit the petitioner moved an application to summon defendant no.2 as witness. It is pertinent to mention that the defendant no.1 has appeared as DW 1 and was duly examined and cross-examined. The plea of the petitioner was the defendant no.2 has not intentionally appeared and on account of non-appearance, the petitioner / plaintiff is not able to prove the case. 5. During the course of argument learned counsel for the plaintiff relied upon Order 16 Rule 1(3) for summoning the defendant no.2 as a witness. 6. Learned Trial court after considering the submissions of both the parties rejected the prayer of the petitioner. Learned Trial Court, inter alia, held that since the relief has been claimed against the defendant no.2, she cannot be compelled to appear as a witness. Before proceeding further it is advantageous to refer to Order 16 Rule 1(3) of the CPC which is reproduced as under: 4 “………………………… (3) The Court may, for reasons to be recorded, permit a party to call, whether by summoning through Court or otherwise, any witness, other than those whose names appear in the list referred to in sub-rule (1), if such part shows sufficient cause for the omission to mention the name of such witness in the said list.” 7. The Court at the outset considers that Order 16 Rule 1(3) is not relevant in the present case. The parties have filed the written submissions. The Court has considered the same as well as the oral submissions. 8. It is pertinent to mention here that the Court in the revisional jurisdiction can interfere in the order only when there is an apparent illegality, manifest error or perversity in the order of the learned Trial Court. The defendant no.2 had not come forward to contest the case. The written statement on record is apparently being filed by the defendant no.1 only as the written statement is supported by affidavit of defendant no.1 only. The defendant no.2 at her own risk did not enter the witness box. There is no doubt to the proposition that the plaintiff is dominus litis. However, it is also a cardinal principle that the plaintiff is bound to prove his own case. The plaintiff has to stand on his own legs. If the defendant no.2 has chosen not to appear and not to contest the case, the plaintiff/ petitioner cannot compel such a person to appear in the witness box. Of course, the Court if considers it to be the necessary for the 5 proper adjudication of the dispute may always exercise such discretion. The application being filed by the petitioner does not disclose any such ground. The Court does not find any ground to interfere with the order of the learned Trial Court. 9. Hence, the present petition is dismissed. 10. All parties shall act on the basis of the server copy of this order duly downloaded from the official website of this Court. (Dinesh Kumar Sharma, J.)