Disposed

Rita Devi Yadav and Ors. v. South Bengal State Transport Corporation

Calcutta HC4 Sept 2023CO/54/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Calcutta High Court (Jalpaiguri Bench) answered a writ petition under Article 227 regarding a judgment rejecting a plea for cessation of pending suits under Section 10 CPC. The court directed transferring one suit to the Senior Division to ensure joint trial and enforced Order XVII Rule 1 CPC requirements for continuous hearing.

What did the court decide?

Ordered withdrawal of Title Suit No. 154 of 2014 to be tried jointly with Title Suit No. 66 of 2017 by Civil Judge (Senior Division), Siliguri, following Order XVII Rule 1 CPC.

Rita Devi Yadav and Ors. Vs South Bengal… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Calcutta HC (2023)

¶1

4.09.2023 SL No52 Court No.3

¶2

Circuit Bench of Calcutta High Court At Jalpaiguri C.O. 54 of 2023

¶3

Rita Devi Yadav & Ors.

¶4

-vs-

¶5

South Bengal State Transport Corporation.

¶6

Mr. Ajay Singhal Mr. Abhishek Singh ……for the petititioners.

¶7

Mr. Ayan Banerjee Ms. D. Dhamali Mr. Debanjan Das ….for the opposite party.

¶8

It appears that an inadvertent typographical

¶9

error has crept into the order dated 28.8.2023.

¶10

The case No. “C.O. 54 of 2019” it should actually be “C.O. 54 of 2023”.

¶11

The inadvertent typographical error is hereby corrected of the order dated 28.8.2023 shall always be read conjointly with this order.

¶12

The other portion of he order shall remain unaltered.

¶13

This application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India impeaches the Order No.12 dated 15^th January, 2020 in Title Suit No. 66 of 2017 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) at Siliguri. By the impugned order, learned trial court was pleased to reject the petition filed by the

¶14

¶15

defendant of this suit under Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

¶16

Briefly stated the petitioners have filed a suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction against the Chairman/Director, South Bengal State Transport Corporation claiming title over the property in suit and permanent injunction etc. being Title Suit No. 154 of 2014

¶17

The South Bengal State Transport Corporation with a rival claim of title has filed another suit seeking eviction of the plaintiffs of Title Suit No. 154 of 2014, who are the defendant nos. 1,2 and 3 registered as Title Suit No. 66 of 2017.

¶18

Heard Mr. Singhal, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Ayan Banerjee, learned counsel for the opposite parties.

¶19

Since the core issue before the court for adjudication of the right, title, interest of either of the parties in both the suit, it is submitted by learned counsel representing the parties with all fairness both the suits should be tried analogously to avoid conflicting decision. According to Mr. Singhal the suit for execution may be transferred to the court of learned Civil Judge (Junior Divisin), Siliguri.

¶20

But my attention is drawn to the fact that the Title Suit No. 66 of 2017 is valued at more than Rs.

¶21

¶22

50,000,00/-. The learned Civil Judge(Junior Division) does not have pecuniary jurisdiction to try that suit.

¶23

Hence, in the interest of justice, the Title Suit No. 154 of 2014 is withdrawn from the file of learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Siliguri. The said suit shall be tried together with Title Suit No. 66 of 2007, by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Silguri in analogously. Learned trial court is directed to adhere Order No. X of the Code of Civil Procedure and after holding first hearing learned Trial Court should proceed to frame issues, taking into consideration the pleadings to find out where parties are at issue. The learned trial court is further directed to follow strictly the provision as laid down under Order XVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

¶24

Order XVII is set out below :-

¶25

“Under Order XVII, Rule(1) of the Code when the hearing of the evidence has once begun the hearing of the suit should be continued from day to day until all the witnesses in attendance have been examined, unless the court finds the adjournment of the hearing to be necessary for reasons to be recorded by the Judge with……”.

¶26

Learned Trial Court shall ensure expeditious disposal of the suits without granting adjournment beyond the prescribed limit as laid down under the

¶27

¶28

procedural law unless there is compelling

¶29

circumstances.

¶30

The revisional application is thus disposed of, however, without any order as to cost.

¶31

(Siddhartha Roy Chowdhury,J)

Rita Devi Yadav and Ors. v. South Bengal State Transport Corporation

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rita Devi Yadav and Ors. v. South Bengal State Transport Corporation

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

Subal Chandra Mazumdar Vs the State of West Bengal and Ors.

Lalit Mandal Vs State of West Bengal

Asha Devi @ Mandal and Ors. Vs State of West Bengal

Hemanta Barman Vs State of West Bengal

Subrata Biswas and Ors. Vs the State of West Bengal and Anr.

Suman Saha Vs Bakul Saha @ Bakul Chandra Saha