Reba Dutt vs Indira Ray & Ors

Arindam Mukherjee, J

RE: GA No.2933 of 2019:

The Court : This is an application for leave to re-examine the defendant No.1 in this testamentary suit. On behalf of the defendant No.1 the questions 119 to 124, 138 and 154 put to the defendant No.1 in cross-examination has been placed to demonstrate that certain ambiguity has surfaced in course of cross-examination of the defendant No.1 which needs to be clarified throughre- examination of the defendant No.1 which has necessitated this application. After going through the said questions and other parts of the deposition, I find that ambiguity, if any, at all created is of such nature that it does not require clarification. Question No.119-124 relates to an application made before the City Civil Court at Calcutta by the defendant No.1 which has been marked as Exhibit - U. The contents of that document will speak for itself and no amount of oral evidence can dislodge the statements made therein.

It is submitted on behalf of the defendant No.1 that there are two other Wills left behind by the father of the defendant No.1 which the defendant No.1 in course of her cross-examination has admitted. However, in the Exhibit -U, the particulars of the said two Wills have not been stated, since the defendant No.1 was not aware of such Will when the application was made. It is the apprehension of the defendant No.1 that showing the contents of Exhibit- U and the questions in which the defendant No.1 that she knew admitted about the two other Wills, it may be contended that there is suppression of material fact in the statements made in Exhibit-U to discredit the credibility of the witness.

It is further submitted on behalf of the defendant No.1 that the defendant No.1 came to know about the said two Wills subsequent to filing of the application being Exhibit- U which needs to be clarified. It is also the case of the defendant No.1 that the defendant No. 1 applied for the certified copy of the Willbeing the subject matter of the instant testamentary suit when she received the intimation about the two other Wills which is subsequent to the making of the application being Exhibit-U and as such she could not have mentioned about the said two Wills in Exhibit - "U". This apprehension is unfounded as the date of the application for the certified copy will clearly demonstrate that the existence of the two Wills came to the knowledge of the defendant No.1 after she applied for the certified copy unless it can be shown that she had knowledge prior to applying for the certified copy. So far as the question No.138 is concerned, the word "No Obstruction" is just a typographical error according to me if other parts of the deposition is considered and the word "No" should, therefore, be deleted. So far as the question No.154 is concerned, in my opinion, no ambiguity has been created and as such needs no clarification.

Mr. Sen, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the plaintiff has referred to certain other parts of the deposition and submitted that no clarification is required if the entire deposition is read as a whole. In any event, according to Mr. Sen, the plaintiff shall not take any advantage of the admission of the two Wills to the knowledge of the petitioner and that the same has not stated in the application being Exhibit-U. He submits that the apprehension as to the credibility of defendant No.1 being jeopardized in view of the questions referred to by the defendant No.1 is also not correct because there are several other answers in the deposition of the defendant No.1 which can be shown to question the credibility of the said defendant No.1.

Considering the rival contentions and in view of the discussions as aforesaid, the application being GA No.2933 of 2019 is disposed of.

There shall be, however, no order as to costs.

Since affidavits have not been called for, allegations, if any, are deemed not to be admitted by the plaintiff.

RE: TS No.1 of 2016:

The suit will appear on 27th January, 2020 "For Arguments".