GLEN INDUSTRIES LIMITED vs UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED

Court
Calcutta High Court

In the High Court at Calcutta
Commercial Division
Original Side

Judgment (2)

PRESENT :
THE HON’BLE JUSTICE ANIRUDDHA ROY



IA NO. GA-COM/7/2026
[OLD NO. CS/80/2023
In CS-COM/497/2024

GLEN INDUSTRIES LIMITED
VS
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY
LIMITED



For the plaintiff/petitioner : Mr. Mr. Shuvasish Sengupta, Adv.
Mr. Biswajib Ghosh, Adv.
Mr. Avirup Chatterjee, Adv.
Mr. Sourojit Dasgupta, Adv.
Mr. Rishov Das, Adv.


For the defendant/respondent : Mr. Soumendranath Ganguly, Adv.
Mr. Jit Ray, Adv.
Ms. Suparna Das, Adv.
Mr. Souvik Ghosh, Adv.


Heard on : September 23, 2026

Judgment on : September 23, 2026
[In Court]


ANIRUDDHA ROY, J :


1. This is an application filed by the plaintiff, inter alia , praying for a
direction to file an affidavit by the plaintiff under Section 65B of

2

the Evidence Act , corresponding to Section 63 of the
Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (for short “ BSA ”).
2. Mr. Shuvasish Sengupta, Learned Advocate with Mr. Sourojit
Dasgupta, Learned Advocate appearing for the plaintiff has
referred to a previous order of this Court dated December 1,
2025 when in a similar circumstance, this Court has allowed the
plaintiff to file such an affidavit which was restricted to two
documents only, as mentioned in the said order appearing at
page 17 to the application. The said affidavit filed in terms of the
direction of this Court dated December 1, 2025 is on record as
also admitted in evidence during the examination in chief of the
witness of the plaintiff.
3. Mr. Jit Ray, Learned Advocate led by Mr. Soumendranath
Ganguly, Learned Advocate appearing for the defendant submits
that this application cannot be allowed, as it is barred by the
principle of res judicata and/or constructive res judicata since the
issue has already been decided by this Court in its order dated
December 1, 2025 .
4. It is further submitted that if the instant application is allowed,
then there might be a complication with regard to the conflict of
evidence already on record and in that case recalling of witness
may be required.

IA NO. GA-COM/7/2026
(Old No. CS/80/2023)
In CS-COM/497/2024
A.R., J.

3


5. Defendant further submits that when the plaintiff had come up
with the previous application on which the order dated December
1, 2025 was passed, they could have come up with the plea
taken in the instant application, as the plea are identical but the
plaintiff did not choose to do so. This shows a gross negligence on
the part of the plaintiff.
6. The defendant in support of its contention has relied upon the
following two judgments:

(i) In the matter of: Satyadhyan Ghosal and Others vs.
Deorajin Debi (Smt.) and Another, reported at AIR
1960 SC 941 and
(ii) In the matter of: Arjun Panditrao Khotkar vs.
Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal and Others, reported
at (2020) 7 Supreme Court Cases 1.

7. After considering the rival submissions of the parties and on
perusal of the materials on record, it appears to this Court that
the order dated December 1, 2025 was passed in the previous
application being IA No. GA-COM/5/2025 , where the affidavit
filed under Section 65B of the Evidence Act was restricted to
two documents mentioned in the said order. The instant
application is a subsequent one relating to various other
documents except those two. These are directions to conduct the

IA NO. GA-COM/7/2026
(Old No. CS/80/2023)
In CS-COM/497/2024
A.R., J.

4

procedure within the framework of law. These directions neither
decide the rights of the parties as the suit is awaiting its final
trial, nor decide any res between the parties. Thus, the question
of application of doctrine of res judicata or constructive res
judicata does not arise in the facts of this case.
8. In the event, at the time of final trial and at the time of argument
of the suit, any of the parties find any irregularity or illegality with
regard to the recording of evidence or even procedural
irregularities, objector parties can take those points at the time of
final hearing of the suit.
9. If there is any conflict of evidence in law, during the examination
of the witness of the parties, the objecting party may raise
objections during the final trial of the suit.
10. Upon considering the application, it appears to this Court that
filing of an affidavit under Section 65B of the Evidence Act , is a
procedural act which cannot be denied in the facts of this case. In
the event, the defendant has any objection with regard to
recording of evidence, such objections can be recorded and can
be decided at the time of final hearing of the suit.
11. The ratio of the judgments relied upon by the defendant would
not apply in the facts and circumstances of this case.
12. In view of the foregoing reasons and discussions, the plaintiff
shall be allowed to file necessary affidavit under Section 65B of

IA NO. GA-COM/7/2026
(Old No. CS/80/2023)
In CS-COM/497/2024
A.R., J.

5

the Evidence Act , corresponding to Section 63 of BSA only in
respect of the documents mentioned in paragraph 5 of the
application being Annexure “E” at page 20 to the instant
application and not beyond that, within two weeks from date.

13. It is made clear that in the event, the defendant would have any
objection in this regard, it may be at liberty to take that objection
at the time of final hearing of the suit.
14. With the above observation and directions, this application IA No.
GA-COM 7 of 2026 stands disposed of , without any order as to
costs.



(ANIRUDDHA ROY, J.)
RS

IA NO. GA-COM/7/2026
(Old No. CS/80/2023)
In CS-COM/497/2024
A.R., J.