In the High Court at Calcutta
Civil Revisional Jurisdiction
C.O. No.538 of 2019
Sri Ramit Kumar Dey
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
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
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
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
If the petitioner wished to lead evidence, it was for the
petitioner to disclose the names of the witnesses proposed and other
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
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
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
There will be no order as to costs.
Urgent certified website copies of this order, if applied for, be
given to the parties upon compliance of all requisite formalities.
(Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J. )