Haran Mondal and Ors. Vs Nurnobi Mondal and Ors. — Calcutta HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

Haran Mondal and Ors. Vs Nurnobi Mondal and Ors. — Calcutta HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Revisional application allowed and disposed of: impugned order dated November 23, 2023 set aside except the cost direction; the three rejected applications revived for disposal on their own merits by the court below after hearing the contesting defendants' objections, subject to payment of the directed cost; plaintiff barred from seeking further adjournments on the fixed dates; merits of the applications left undecided.

Issue for consideration

Whether the learned Civil Judge rightly rejected the plaintiff's adjournment petition and the other applications, without granting a further (last) opportunity to the plaintiff.

Court's answer

Rejection of the applications without a further opportunity caused serious injustice to the plaintiff; last opportunity should have been given upon imposition of cost.

Ratio / Principle

The order dated November 23, 2023 is set aside, except the direction for payment of cost, and all three applications rejected thereby are revived.

Key takeaways

The court below shall dispose of the three applications after giving the contesting defendants opportunity to file written objections, on their own merits; the applications stand revived only if the directed cost is paid.ratio¶14
The plaintiff is restrained from seeking further adjournments on the date fixed for hearing of the applications, and this Court has expressly not decided the merits of the applications.ratio¶15

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Revision (CO) against order of the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kalyani, Nadia dated November 23, 2023, whereby the plaintiff's adjournment petition (ground: absence of the learned advocate) and all three applications were rejected with cost of Rs.500/-. Held: the rejection without any further opportunity caused serious injustice to the plaintiff; last opportunity should have been given upon imposition of cost. The impugned order was set aside except the cost direction, and the three applications were revived. The court below is to afford the contesting defendants an opportunity to file written objections, if not already filed, and then dispose of the applications on their own merits; the revival is conditional on payment of the directed cost. The plaintiff was restrained from seeking further adjournments on the dates fixed, and the Court expressly recorded that it had not decided the merits of the applications. Revisional application allowed and disposed of.

February 13, 2024 Sl. No.7 Court No.19 s.biswas

CO 111 of 2024

Haran Mondal and others

vs. Nurnobi Mondal and others

Mr. Saptarshi Kumar Kundu

… for the petitioners

Affidavit of service filed by the petitioners is taken on record.

Despite service, none appears on behalf of the opposite parties.

This revisional application arises out of an order dated November 23, 2023 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kalyani, Nadia.

By the order impugned, the adjournment petition filed by the plaintiff citing absence of the learned advocate was rejected. All three applications were also accordingly rejected with cost of Rs.500/-.

In my opinion, this has caused serious injustice to the plaintiff. The learned court ought not to have rejected the applications, without further opportunity to the plaintiff to move the same. The ground for seeking adjournment was absence of the learned advocate. Last opportunity should have been given upon imposition of cost.

Under such circumstances, the order dated November 23, 2023 is set aside, except the direction for payment of cost. All the three applications,

2

which were rejected by the order impugned, are revived. The learned court below shall dispose of the said applications upon giving opportunity to the contesting defendants in the suit, to file their written objections to the said applications, if not already filed. Thereafter, such applications shall be disposed of at the convenience of the learned court below, on their own merits. The applications will revive only if the cost as directed by the learned court, is paid.

It is made clear that the plaintiff shall refrain from seeking further adjournments on the date fixed for hearing of the applications. This court has not decided on the merits of the application.

The revisional application is thus allowed and disposed of accordingly.

All the parties are directed to act on the basis of the server copy of the order.

Urgent Photostat certified copies of this order, if applied for, be made available to the parties upon compliance with the requisite formalities.

(Shampa Sarkar, J.)