Dismissed

Bula Bose and Anr. v. Gobinda Ch. Rudra

Calcutta HC15 Nov 2022CO/3087/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This revisional application challenged the rejection of a prayer for local investigation in a title suit for eviction. The High Court held that since the suit was matured for peremptory hearing, such investigation was unnecessary, and the impugned order by the Civil Judge did not require interference, allowing cross-examination on the schedule's vagueness.

What did the court decide?

The revisional application stood disposed of; liberty granted to petitioners for cross-examination on the vagueness of the schedule.

Bula Bose and Anr. Vs Gobinda Ch. Rudra — Landlord and Tenant | Calcutta HC (2022)

¶1

15.11.2022 Item No.28 Ct. No.7 CHC (disposed of)

¶2

C.O.3087 of 2022

¶3

Smt. Bula Bose & anr. Vs. Sri Gobinda Chandra Rudra

¶4

Mr. Saptarshi Kumar Kundu

¶5

…for the petitioners

¶6

Mr. Prasanta Kumar Banerjee, Ms. Indrani Nandi, Mr. S. S. Banerjee

¶7

…for the opposite party

¶8

Rejection of a prayer for local investigation in a suit for eviction of a tenant is under challenge in this case.

¶9

Mr. Kundu, learned advocate appearing for the petitioners/tenants/defendants drawing attention of the schedule of plaint, wherefrom tenants have been sought to be evicted, submits that description of the schedule of the suit premises is vague one, and for the vagueness of the schedule, the decree, if any, granted after full trial, may not be executed.

¶10

Mr. Prasanta Kumar Banerjee, learned advocate appearing for the opposite party/plaintiff/landlord replies that such prayer for local investigation has been made at a stage, when the suit is matured one, and further, the local inspection is not at all required for proving the grounds available under Section 6 of the Premises Tenancy Act.

¶11

¶12

It is thus contended by the opposite party that the entire exercise behind filing of this application under Order 26 Rule 9 C.P.C. is to cause delay to the disposal of the suit.

¶13

Having considered the submission of both sides, it appears that suit has already been set for peremptory hearing.

¶14

It is basically a suit for eviction. Description of the suit property should be mentioned with all certainty leaving behind no vagueness. For the vagueness of the schedule, if there be any, the profit, if there be any, may be in favour of the petitioners/tenants seeking local investigation in the instant case.

¶15

For the reasons mentioned hereinabove, investigation of the suit property in aid of Order 26 Rule 9 C.P.C. is not at all required. The impugned order passed in Title Suit No. 91 of 2019 by learned Civil Judge, (Junior Division), 1^st Court, Ranaghat as such, does not call for any interference.

¶16

However, petitioners are given liberty to undertake appropriate cross-examination in accordance with law in support of his defence pertaining to the vagueness of schedule, as set up already in written statement.

¶17

With this observation/direction, the revisional application stands disposed of.

¶18

Both the parties are directed to make communication of this order to the court below.

¶19

¶20

Urgent certified photostat copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties as expeditiously as possible on compliance of all necessary formalities.

¶21

(Subhasis Dasgupta, J.)

Bula Bose and Anr. v. Gobinda Ch. Rudra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bula Bose and Anr. v. Gobinda Ch. Rudra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mahadeb Chauley and Ors. Vs Smt Rama Mondal

Shila Roy and Anr. Vs Ratan Kr Ghosh and Anr.

Debasish Basak and Anr. Vs Rabindra Nath Sinha and Ors.

bandana dey Vs Ramgopal Dey and Ors.

Subhankar Chowdhury Vs Sudipta Choudhury and Ors.

Anwesha Pal Vs Shibashis Guha