Disposed¶17

Satya Prakash Jaisal Alias Shaw v. Arvind Kumar Harbhajanka and Anr.

Calcutta HC12 Aug 2024CO/182/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Calcutta High Court, Appellate Side, C.O. 182 of 2023 — Satya Prakash Jaisal alias Shaw v. Arvind Kumar Harbhajanka & Anr., decided 12.08.2024 by Biswajit Basu, J. Article 227 revision against striking off defence in eviction suit (Title Suit No. 1093 of 2018, Howrah); Order XI Rules 14, 15 and 16 CPC; production, inspection and proof of documents; no documents specified in written statement or application; no Rule 16 notice; defence restored subject to strict timelines for cross-examination and defendant's evidence.

What did the court decide?

Revision disposed of: impugned orders set aside; defendant to prove his documents and adduce evidence subject to time-bound conditions fixed by the Trial Judge; no order as to costs. ¶17

Satya Prakash Jaisal Alias Shaw Vs Arvind Kumar… — Writ and Judicial Review | Calcutta HC (2024)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Revision disposed of: impugned orders set aside; defendant to prove his documents and adduce evidence subject to time-bound conditions fixed by the Trial Judge; no order as to costs.

¶17

Issue for consideration

Whether the trial court's orders allowing inspection/production of documents under Order XI Rules 14 and 15 CPC and striking off the defendant's defence for non-compliance were sustainable, when neither the written statement nor the application specified any documents and no notice under Order XI Rule 16 was issued.

¶9

Court's answer

Since the defendant is required to prove the documents relied on in his defence, the orders impugned (Order No. 22 dated February 18, 2022 and Order No. 27 dated July 12, 2022) are set aside.

¶14

Ratio / Principle

The learned Trial Judge shall fix a date for further cross-examination of the plaintiffs' witness, which the defendant must conclude on that date itself, failing which the evidence of that witness shall stand closed.

¶15

Key takeaways

The defendant alone shall be entitled to adduce evidence; the Trial Judge shall fix a date for tendering evidence-in-chief and proving the defence documents, to be concluded on the date fixed, with the defendant remaining available for cross-examination the same day, failing which his evidence shall be expunged.ratio¶16

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Civil revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by the defendant in an eviction suit (Title Suit No. 1093 of 2018) against Order No. 22 dated February 18, 2022 (allowing the plaintiffs' application under Order XI Rules 14 and 15 CPC and directing production of defence documents) and Order No. 27 dated July 12, 2022 (striking off the defence for non-compliance), passed by the 4th Court of the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Howrah. Held, setting aside the impugned orders: neither the defendant's written statement nor the plaintiffs' application referred to any specific document, and no notice under Order XI Rule 16 CPC was issued; the defendant is required to prove his documents. Copies of the defence documents were supplied to the plaintiffs' advocate during the pendency of the revision. Directions issued: further cross-examination of the plaintiffs' witness to be concluded by the defendant on the date fixed, failing which that evidence stands closed; the defendant alone to adduce evidence, with examination-in-chief and proof of documents concluded on the fixed date and availability for cross-examination the same day, failing which his evidence is to be expunged. Revision disposed of without any order as to costs (Biswajit Basu, J.).

¶1

21 sandip Ct. 19 12.08.2024

¶2

In The High Court At Calcutta Civil Revisional Jurisdiction (Appellate Side)

¶3

C.O. 182 of 2023

¶4

Satya Prakash Jaisal alias Shaw Vs. Arvind Kumar Harbhajanka & Anr.

¶5

Mr. Sourav Sen, Mr. Partha Chakraborty, Mr. Muhammad Obaid … For the petitioner.

¶6

Mr. Ashok Sharma For the opposite parties.

¶7

The defendant in a suit for eviction is the petitioner of the instant application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, which is directed against the Order No. 22 dated February 18, 2022 and Order No. 27, dated July 12, 2022 passed by the 4^th Court of learned Civil Judge, (Junior Division) at Howrah, in the said suit being Title Suit No. 1093 of 2018 .

¶8

The learned Trial Judge by the Order No. 22, dated February 18, 2022 had allowed an application filed by the plaintiffs, the opposite parties herein under Order XI Rules 14 and 15 of the Code of Civil Procedure, thereby directing the defendant to produce documents which he is relying on in his defence and for his failure to comply with the said direction, by the Order No. 27 dated July 12, 2022 has struck off the defence of the defendant.

¶9

Neither the defendant in his written statement has referred to any document(s) to be relied on in his defence, nor the plaintiffs, in their application under Order XI Rules 14 and 15 of the code has mentioned any document(s) which they intend to inspect; besides, no notice as required under Order XI Rule 16 thereof was issued by the plaintiffs.

¶10

Be that as it may, during the pendency of the instant revisional application, Mr. Sen, learned advocate for the petitioner has

¶11

¶12

supplied copy of the documents which his client is relying on in support of his defence in the suit to Mr. Sharma, learned advocate for the opposite parties.

¶13

Mr. Sharma submits that the defendants may be directed to produce the original of the said documents before the learned Trial judge, enabling the plaintiffs to have inspection.

¶14

In any event, the defendant is required to prove the said documents and to facilitate the said drill, the orders impugned are set aside.

¶15

The learned Trial Judge shall fix a date for further crossexamination of the plaintiffs’ witness; the defendant is obliged to conclude such cross-examination on the said date itself; in default, the evidence of said witness shall stand closed.

¶16

The defendant alone shall be entitled to adduce evidence. The learned Trial Judge shall fix a date enabling the defendant to tender his evidence-in-chief and to prove the documents in support of his defence, but such examination-in-chief must be concluded on the date fixed and the defendant shall make himself available if the plaintiffs intend to cross-examine him on the said date itself; in default, the evidence of the defendant shall be expunged.

¶17

C.O. 182 of 2023 is disposed of with the above terms without any order as to costs.

¶18

Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties subject to compliance with all requisite formalities.

¶19

(Biswajit Basu, J.)

Satya Prakash Jaisal Alias Shaw v. Arvind Kumar Harbhajanka and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Satya Prakash Jaisal Alias Shaw v. Arvind Kumar Harbhajanka and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sudip Kar and Anr. Vs Subrata Kumar Paul and Ors.

Manowar Mirja Vs Mirja Mohammad Yousuf and Ors.

Sanjay Sarkar and Ors. Vs Mousumi Sardar

Subodh Kumar Gupta Vs Pankaj Gupta and Anr.

Chaitali Dey and Ors. Vs Subhas Dutta and Ors.

Puja Kedia Nee Puja Bajaj Vs Amit Kedia