West Bengal

Birbhum

MA/1/2019

. Sri Indranil Roy, S/o Tarit Nath Roy - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s. Sree Balaji, a sole proprietorship firm - Opp.Party(s)

03 Jan 2019

ORDER

The Complainant, Op No. 1 and 2 file separate hazira.

 Today is fixed for filing reply of questionnaires by the Complainant against the evidence Op No. 2. But Ld. Advocate/Agent on the complainant submits that they will not file any reply.

The Op No. 1 M/S. Sree Balaji files evidence on affidavit of one Prosanta Bhakta project Manager of Op No. 1 along with some documents.       

Op No. 1 also files a petition for accepting evidence of Shri Bhakta as Opw No. 2.

            The petition be treated as M.A Case No. 1/2019.

            Heard both sides. Strong objection is raised by Ld. Advocate/Agent Complainant.

            We find that it is the case of the Op No. 1 that Sri Bhakta being project Manager, of Op No. 1 is well acquainted with facts of the case and his evidence is very much necessary in this case.

 On the other hand by filing W/O the Complainant submits that shri Bhakat has neither any privity of contract nor any locus standi to depose in this case as proprietor of the same Manab Paul has already filed W/V and disposed and cross examined as OPW 1.

But S. 13(4) CP Act has empowered this forum to call any witness and to examine him on oath. There is no provision in CP Act which has debarred the parties to the case to adduce any further witness other than the party himself.

            We find that Shri Bhakat being project Manager of the Op No. 1 M/S Sree Balajee is well conversant with facts of the present case and his evidence is to be accepted as OPW 2.

            Hence

                        Ordered,

                                    that the petition dated 02/01/2019 filed by Op No. 1 i.e. M.A Case No. 1/2019 is allowed on contest. No. cost.

 

Thus the MA is disposed of.

Fix. 06/02/2019 for filing questionnaires by OP No. 1.

Copy of this order be supplied to the parties each at free of cost.