D/L- 8 14/09/2026 Ct. No.- 6 Aritra C.O. 2502 of 2026 Sabita Bibi Sk. @ Saiekh Vs. Saiful Bibi & Ors. Mr. Sounak Mandal ….for the petitioner Mr. Mrinal Kanti Ghosh ….for the opposite parties Though this matter is appearing under the heading “Extension of Interim Order” but with the consent of the learned advocate for the respective parties the main civil revisional application is taken up for final hearing by treating the same as on the day’s list. This application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is at the instance of the defendant and is directed against the orders being No.74 and 75 dated July 4, 2026 and July 17, 2026 respectively, both passed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Div.), 2nd Court at Diamond Harbour in Title Suit No.276 of 2019. Reference may be made to the order dated August 25, 2026 whereby this Court held that the learned trial judge was right in rejecting the prayer for leave to file the additional written statement and was not inclined to interfere with the order dated July 4, 2026. However, this Court directed the petitioner to serve a notice upon the opposite parties insofar as the order dated July 17, 2026 is concerned. 2 Mr. Mandal, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that after the plaint was amended the petitioner filed the additional written statement and in order to prove the case made out by the petitioner in the additional written statement an opportunity to give evidence ought to have been afforded. He submits that the learned trial judge did not afford any opportunity to the petitioner to adduce evidence. Mr. Ghosh, learned advocate appearing for the opposite parties disputes the submissions of Mr. Mandal. He draws the attention of the Court to the order dated March 5, 2026 in support of his contention that in spite of an opportunity being provided, no petition was filed by the petitioner for giving further evidence. He submits that thereafter several dates were fixed for adducing evidence by the defendant witness but the defendant did not adduce any evidence for which the learned trial judge was compelled to close the evidence of the defendant. Heard the learned advocate for the respective parties and perused the materials placed. Though by the order dated March 5, 2026, an opportunity was granted to the petitioner to file a petition for giving further evidence of the defendant witness no petition was filed and accordingly the learned trial judge fixed March 24, 2026 for argument. The hearing of the matter was adjourned on Mach 24, 2026 on account of resolution taken by the local Bar Association. On April 2, 2026, the petitioner filed a miscellaneous case under 3 Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure for transfer of the suit which was at the stage of argument. On a query of the Court, the learned advocate appearing for the petitioner could not apprise this Court as to the fate of the application under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure. This Court finds that by an order dated April 9, 2026, the learned Trial Judge fixed April 22, 2026, for further evidence of the defendant witness. However, instead of adducing evidence, the petitioner filed another additional written statement and the learned Trial Judge fixed May 6, 2026 for hearing of the application for acceptance of the additional written statement. The learned trial judge, by an order dated April 4, 2026, rejected the application under Order VIII Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure and such order was challenged in this civil revisional application and this Court did not interfere with such portion of the order by order dated August 25, 2026. Upon going through the order sheets appended to this civil revision application this Court finds that the petitioner took all possible steps to delay the hearing of the title suit. However, this Court feels that a last opportunity should be granted to the petitioner to adduce evidence but subject to certain stringent conditions. CO 2502 of 2026 stands disposed of by granting an opportunity to the petitioner to adduce evidence of the defendant witness on the next date fixed before the learned trial judge subject to payment of cost of 4 Rs.20,000/- to the opposite parties to be paid by the petitioner at least one day prior to the next date fixed before the learned trial judge. If the cost as directed hereinbefore is paid and the witness of the defendant remains present before the learned trial judge on the next date fixed, the learned trial judge shall allow the witness of the defendant to adduce evidence and shall make an endeavour to dispose of the Title Suit No.276 of 2019 as expeditiously as possible but preferably within a period of three (3) months from the next date fixed without granting any unnecessary adjournments to either of the parties. In order to comply with the directions passed by this Court, it will be open to the learned trial judge fix short dates for evidence of the defendant witness, if the same is not concluded on the next date. All parties shall act on the server copy of this order duly downloaded from the official website of this Court. (Hiranmay Bhattacharyya, J.)