by Anima Hazarika, President

          Heard Mr. A Roy, learned counsel for the complainants. Also heard Mr. T Das, learned counsel for the opposite parties.

          This is an application praying for allowing the complainants to file additional evidence in the complaint case. Mr. Roy, learned counsel for the complainants submits that the instant complaint case was filed in the year 2003, but except the evidence on affidavit of the complainant himself i.e., Sailendra behari Kakati, he could not file evidence of any other person/eye witness as the incident was of the year 2001. The complainants had been searching for witness of the incident and recently, he found one witness who was present at the time of the incident and thus he may be allowed to filed the evidence on affidavit of the said witness. Learned counsel further submits that there will not be any prejudice caused to the opposite parties if the prayer made by the complainant is allowed, inasmuch as, the cross-examination of the complainants (PW-1) has not yet been completed. Moreover, as the matte pertains to medical negligence, for proper adjudication of the case, the evidence of the eyewitness (Sri Hiteswar Medhi) is very much essential.

          On the otherhand, the learned counsel appearing for the opposite parties has vehemently objected to the prayer so made on behalf of the complainant.

          Learned counsel has submitted that the case was instituted by the complainants as far back in the year 2003 arising out of an incident of the year 2001 and from the very beginning, the complainants have been found negligent in the process for which the progress of the proceeding is delayed continuing for a period of about 14 years and the record would reveal that they filed evidence on affidavit only on 11.8.2016 though they were to file the same on 24.7.2015 and accordingly, the case was fixed for cross-examination after appointing Advocate Commissioner to record evidence. But, due to lapse of prosecution side, the cross-examination of the PW-1 could not be held till date and now, this application has been filed for allowing the complainants to adduce additional evidence after having found the eyewitness of the incident and as such, the present petition is not maintainable and liable to be rejected.

          We have considered submissions so made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties. Also perused the materials on record. Perusal of the order sheet of the case would reveal that though the complaint petition was admitted as far back as on 23-5-2003 but, the same was listed for the first time only on 9-5-2013. The complainants thereafter have filed their evidence on affidavit (PW-1). However, recently, they have found one eyewitness of the incident and hence, prayed for allowing them to adduce additional evidence of the said eyewitness. Considering the fact that the complaint case has been filed alleging medical negligence on the part of the opposite parties and recently found  aforementioned eyewitness, therefore, we are of the considered view that allowing the prayer made on behalf of the complainants to adduce additional evidence of the aforesaid eyewitness, no prejudice would be caused to the opposite parties, more so, cross-examination has not yet been started.

          In view of the above, complainant is allowed to file the evidence on affidavit of the eye witness.

          Misc Case is allowed and disposed of accordingly.