The Calcutta High Court has observed that communication by an advocate about a court order is as good as production of certified copy of the order in question, unless strongly rebutted.
An application seeking an opportunity to lead evidence was turned down by the trial court. This order was challenged before the high court that directed the applicant to appear on a returnable date and granted the petitioner liberty to pray for adjournment before the court below.
The trial court, in the meantime, refused adjournment in spite of request for adjournment and production of an advocate’s letter communicating the order of the high court that granted him liberty to pray for adjournment before the trial court.
The court then heard the application under Section 7(1) and (2) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act and disposed of the same.
Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, in his interim order, observed: “Since it is well-settled that communication by an advocate is as good as production of certified copy of the order in question, unless strongly rebutted, prima facie the trial court acted without jurisdiction in disbelieving such communication and disposing of the application in question on merits.”
The court then ordered stay of all further proceedings in the ejectment suit.