Disposed

Prabir Mukherjee @ Prabir Kumar Mukherjee v. Chitra Dey and Ors.

Calcutta HC21 Aug 2023CO/642/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court held that the Civil Judge acted without illegal or material irregularity in allowing an amendment to the plaint schedule. The petition was declared academic as the underlying suit was dismissed. The revision was disposed of without interference.

What did the court decide?

Revisional application disposed of; petitioner at liberty to proceed in accordance with law.

Prabir Mukherjee @ Prabir Kumar Mukherjee Vs Chitra Dey… — Landlord and Tenant | Calcutta HC (2023)

¶1

21.08.2023 Court No. 19 Item No.11 CP

¶2

C.O. 642 of 2023

¶3

Sri Prabir Mukherjee alias Prabir Kumar

¶4

Mukherjee

¶5

Vs.

¶6

Smt. Chitra Dey & ors.

¶7

Mr. Souvik Das Mr. K. Roy

¶8

…for the petitioner.

¶9

It is submitted by the petitioner that the Ejectment Suit No. 51 of 2010 had been decreed under Section 2(g) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Bidhannagar. The petitioner contends that the learned court below ought not to have disposed of the suit, during the pendency of the revisional application.

¶10

It appears that the revisional application was filed sometime in February 2023 and the matter was pending before the court. However, as there was no stay order granted by the High Court, the learned court proceeded. The petitioner also participated in the proceeding.

¶11

The order impugned before this court is an order dated January 19, 2023, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Bidhannagar in Ejectment Suit No. 51 of 2010. By the order

¶12

¶13

impugned, an application for amendment of the plaint was allowed by incorporating the proposed details in the schedule. The same is set out below:

¶14

“piece and parcel of entire ground floor comprising of three bed rooms, one bath room, one dining space, one kitchen with two verandahs of’’.

¶15

It appears that in paragraph 3 of the plaint, it had already been stated that Debdas Mukherjee, was originally the tenant under Byomkesh Dey, in respect of the entire ground floor comprising of three bedrooms, one bathroom, one dining space, one kitchen with two verandahs attached to a room. Thereafter Anima Mukherjee, his widow was the sole tenant, who died on September 21, 2009, leaving behind the defendants as her only heirs and legal representatives at a monthly rent of Rs.2000/- as per English calendar. The tenanted property was described in the schedule of the plaint. However, the schedule of the plaint went down as such:

¶16

“SCHDEULE OF THE PROPERTY

¶17

ALL THAT a two storied brick built building of premises No.7/1B, Sri Nath Chakraborty Lane, Kolkata – 700035 and the said premises is butted and bounded as follows: On the north: 7/IB/1, Sri Nath Chakraborty Land, Kolkata- 700 035. On the South: 10/C Deshbandhu Road (East), Kolkata – 700035. On the East: 7/1A Sri Nath Chakraborty Land, Kolkata – 700035. On the West: 60/5, Nimchand Moitra Street, Kolkata – 700035.”

¶18

¶19

By the amendment application, the area of occupation by the erstwhile tenant, that is, the entire ground floor comprising of three bed rooms, one bath room, one dining space, one kitchen with two verandahs were sought to be incorporated. Such fact was already pleaded elaborately in paragraph 3 of the plaint. The defendants did not raise any objection with regard to the extent of tenancy.

¶20

The amendment did not change the nature and character of the suit property. It was only a better description of the tenanted property which was sought to be incorporated in the schedule as had been stated in paragraph 3 of the plaint. Such omission/mistake was rectified in the schedule.

¶21

The learned court below did not either act illegally or with material irregularity in allowing such amendment.

¶22

Thus, this court does not find any reason to interfere with the order impugned. However, as the suit has been dismissed, the contention of the petitioner has now become academic.

¶23

The petitioner is at liberty to act and proceed in accordance with law.

¶24

This court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the decree.

¶25

¶26

The revisional application is, accordingly,

¶27

disposed of.

¶28

There shall be no order as to costs.

¶29

Parties are to act on the server copy of this

¶30

order.

¶31

(Shampa Sarkar, J.)

Prabir Mukherjee @ Prabir Kumar Mukherjee v. Chitra Dey and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prabir Mukherjee @ Prabir Kumar Mukherjee v. Chitra Dey and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sourav Bose Vs Prayanka Bose

Arati Maity Vs Laxmi Kanta Maity and Ors.

Merrill Vihar LLP Vs Dipen Jele and Ors.

Riya Banerjee Vs United Bank of India and Ors.

Subal Chandra Sahoo Vs Gouri Sahoo and Ors.

Tara Sinha and Ors. Vs Ava Rani Paul