Netai Sarkar Vs Banasree Kundu and Ors. — Calcutta HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

Netai Sarkar Vs Banasree Kundu and Ors. — Calcutta HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Revisional application disposed of with time-bound directions: evidence of the parties to be completed within two months from the next date fixed and the suit disposed of within six months from completion of evidence, without unnecessary adjournments; a copy of the revisional application along with a server copy of the order to be served upon the opposite parties within a week; no order as to costs.

Issue for consideration

Whether the learned trial court complied with this Court's earlier order dated January 6, 2020 directing expeditious disposal of the suit, amid alleged repeated adjournments, ongoing cross-examination of PW1, and changes of counsel said to be made by the opposite parties to delay proceedings. +1 more

Court's answer

From the records, the petitioner's contention appeared possibly partially correct, but the Court expressly refrained from making any observation in that regard — the compliance question is left open.

Ratio / Principle

This Court viewed the petitioner's prayer for early disposal of the proceeding as innocuous: neither party stands to lose from expeditious disposal, which shall enure to the benefit of the parties; hence there is no requirement for service of prior notice upon the opposite parties.

Key takeaways

Operative directions: the learned court below is to complete the evidence of the parties within two months from the next date fixed, and thereafter dispose of the suit within six months from completion of the evidence without granting unnecessary adjournments to any of the parties.ratio¶13
The Court expressly states it has not gone into the merits of the suit; the directions are procedural and time-bound only.obiter¶14

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Civil Order (C.O. No. 18 of 2024), disposed of on 08.02.2024 by Justice Shampa Sarkar. Petitioner Sri Netai Sarkar sought expeditious disposal of Title Suit No. 10 of 2012, pending before the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), 2nd Court at Barasat, North 24-Parganas, alleging apparent non-compliance with this Court's earlier order of January 6, 2020 directing expeditious disposal, repeated adjournments, continuing cross-examination of PW1, and changes of counsel by the opposite parties made only to delay proceedings. From the records the contention appeared possibly partially correct, but the Court expressly refrained from making any observation and did not enter into the merits of the suit. Deeming the prayer innocuous and beneficial to both parties, the Court found no requirement for prior notice to the opposite parties, directed the learned court below to complete evidence of the parties within two months from the next date fixed and to dispose of the suit within six months from completion of evidence without granting unnecessary adjournments to any party, ordered service of the revisional application and a server copy of the order upon the opposite parties within a week, and disposed of the revisional application with no order as to costs.

08.02.2024 Sl. No.40(DL) srm

C.O. No. 18 of 2024

Sri Netai Sarkar

Versus

Smt. Banasree Kundu & Ors.

Mr. Sudipta Kumar Bose, Ms. Lipika Nath, Mr. Aniruddha Bandyopadhyay

…for the Petitioner.

The petitioner seeks expeditious disposal of Title Suit No.10 of 2012, which is pending before the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), 2^nd Court at Barasat, North 24-Parganas.

The petitioner submits that by an earlier order dated January 6, 2020, this Court had directed the learned trial Judge to dispose of the suit expeditiously. It is submitted that the said order has not yet been complied with and repeated adjournments were being sought for. The cross-examination of PW1 is going. It is further submitted that learned Advocates are being changed by the opposite parties, only to delay the proceeding.

From the records, it appears that the contention of the petitioner may be partially correct. However, I refrain from making any observation in this regard.

2

Considering the submissions of the petitioner and age of the suit, this Court is of the view that the prayer of the petitioner for early disposal of the proceeding, is innocuous. Neither party stands to lose if a proceeding is disposed of expeditiously. In fact, such expeditious disposal shall enure to the benefit of the parties. Hence, there is no requirement for service of prior notice upon the opposite parties.

Under such circumstances, this Court directs the learned court below to complete the evidence of the parties within two months from the next date fixed. Thereafter, the suit should be disposed of within six month from completion of the evidence without granting unnecessary adjournments to any of the parties.

This Court has not gone into the merits of the suit.

A copy of the revisional application along with a server copy of this order be served upon the opposite parties within a week.

The revisional application is, thus, disposed of.

There will be, however, no order as to costs.

Parties are to act on the basis of the server copy of this

order.

(Shampa Sarkar, J.)