1

S/l.

14.
Bpg.

15.02.

2019

In the High Court at Calcutta
Civil Revisional Jurisdiction

C.O. No.538 of 2019

Sri Ramit Kumar Dey
Versus
Smt. Rituparna Dey (Singha) and another.

Mr. Debojyoti Basu,
Mr. Arunava Ganguly.

…for the petitioner.

Mr. Gopal Chandra Ghosh,,
Mr. Prasanta Kumar Banerjee.

…for the opposite parties.

The opposite party no.1 in a proceeding under Section 25 of

the Guardians and Wards Act has preferred the instant revisional

application.

By a previous order of this Court passed in a different

revisional application, an opportunity was given to both sides to

adduce additional evidence, if necessary, with regard to the mental

condition of the present opposite party no.1. In pursuance thereof,

the present petitioner filed written additional evidence/ additional

written objection, praying therein for acceptance of the same in
2

addition to the written objection already filed by the present

petitioner. Subsequently, another application was filed by the

petitioner for a direction on the parties to take steps for adducing

evidence, in support of, or in opposition to, the application filed by

the petitioner for interim custody of the minor child and hearing of

such evidence as may be adduced before making of an order in the

said application. By the impugned order, the trial court dismissed

the said application on the ground that it was completely misleading

and misconceived.

Upon hearing learned counsel for both the sides, it appears

that the observations of the trial court were justified, inasmuch as

the petitioner was extremely vague in making the prayer in such

application. First, the petitioner could not, in law, have sought a

direction on the opposite party no.1 or parties other than himself to

adduce evidence.

If the petitioner wished to lead evidence, it was for the

petitioner to disclose the names of the witnesses proposed and other

details.

Hence, the impugned order does not suffer from any illegality

or material irregularity justifying interference. However, for the ends

of justice, and in consonance with the previous liberty given by this

Court, the petitioner ought to be given a last chance for filing an

appropriate application for adducing evidence. Since the petitioner
3

and the opposite party no.1, being the primary contesting parties,

are represented in Court today, service on the proforma opposite

party is dispensed with.

C.O. No.538 of 2019 is disposed of without interfering with the

impugned order, but granting the petitioner liberty to file a proper

application for production of witnesses by specifically mentioning the

names and further details of such witnesses within one week from

date, in the court below. In the event such application is filed, the

opposite party no.1 will be at liberty to file a written objection thereto

within a further week.

Thereafter, the court below will proceed to hear out the

application under Section 12 of the Guardians and Wards Act in

connection with Act VIII Case No.24 of 2018, as expeditiously as

possible, without granting any unnecessary adjournment to either

side.

It is made clear that in the event the petitioner does not file

the application, as indicated above, in the court below within one

week from date, the trial court will straightaway proceed with the

hearing of the application under Section 12 of the Guardians and

Wards Act and the petitioner will have no further liberty to file any

such application.

There will be no order as to costs.

4

Urgent certified website copies of this order, if applied for, be

given to the parties upon compliance of all requisite formalities.

(Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J. )