West Bengal

Birbhum

MA/1/2017

Chandan Das, - Complainant(s)

Versus

Branch Manager, SBI, Parota Branch, - Opp.Party(s)

Sanjit Kr. Acharya

20 Jul 2017

ORDER

The petition dated 04.04.2016 filed by the O.P No.2 for permitting her to cross examine the complainant along with objection filed by the complainant is taken up for passing order.

Perused the petition, written objection and other materials on record.

By filing the instant petition O.P No.2 Santa Ganguly prayed for permitting her to cross examine the complainant/PW1 Chandan Das against question No.1,2,4,5,6,8 and 10 of the questionnaires submitted by her, as the complainant has not given proper reply to her questionnaires.

On the other hand in his written objection the complainant submitted that the O.P No.2 has no locus standi to file such petition and after getting reply of questionnaires she cannot cross examine the complainant and the petition is liable to be rejected.

We find that in the present case the complainant has submitted his examination in chief on affidavit.

The O.P No.2 has submitted questionnaires on the basis of said evidence.

The complainant has duly submitted his reply by filing affidavit.

At this stage it is the allegation of O.P No.2 that the complainant has not given proper reply to her question. So, the complainant is required to be cross examined on dock.

We find that in view of the judgement passed in Appeal(Civil) 7975 of 2001 (Doctor J.J. Marchent and other =Vs.= Sreenath Chaturbedy) by Hon’ble Supreme Court in cases where cross examination of the persons who have filed affidavit is necessary, suggested questions of cross examinations be given to the person who have tendered their affidavits and reply may be also on affidavits.

In the present case the procedure prescribed by Honble Apex Court has been duly followed.

So, the O.P No.2 cannot get any opportunity to cross examine the complainant again by adopting other procedure.

More so, we find that in present case 11 questions were put to the PW1 Chandan Das by O.P No.2 by filing questionnaires.

But filing instant petition she prayed for cross examination of Chanda Das again against her question No. 1,2,4,5,6,8 and 10, which is nothing but total reopening of cross examination of complainant by putting same question again on dock.

Considering over all matter in to consideration and materials on record and relying upon the judgement passed by Honble Apex Court we have no other alternative but to hold that the instant petition is liable to be rejected.

Hence,

Ordered, that the petition dated 04.04.2016 filed by O.P No.2 for permitting her to cross examine the complainant, is rejected on contest but without any cost. Thus the Mis.Case No. 1/2017 is disposed of accordingly.