Allowed¶5

Shri Susanta Dutta v. Shri Prashanta Dutta

Calcutta HC14 Mar 2024CO/3152/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

CO 3152 of 2023; Sri Susanta Dutta v. Sri Prasanta Dutta; Article 227; Section 10 CPC; stay of suit; previously instituted suit; Title Suit No.22 of 2017; Title Suit No.28 of 2017; eviction of licensee; revocation of licence; deed of gift void ab initio; order no.52 dated 23.03.2023; Civil Judge Junior Division 1st Court Bolpur Birbhum; rejection set aside; decide afresh; reasoned order within eight weeks; Hiranmay Bhattacharyya, J.; 14.03.2024.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order no.52 dated 23.03.2023 rejecting the Section 10 CPC application set aside; trial Judge directed to decide the stay application afresh after hearing both parties, by a reasoned order, preferably within eight weeks; no order as to costs. ¶5

Shri Susanta Dutta Vs Shri Prashanta Dutta — Writ and Judicial Review | Calcutta HC (2024)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶5

Issue for consideration

Whether the trial court validly rejected the petitioner's application under Section 10 of the Civil Procedure Code for stay of Title Suit No.28 of 2017, having found the outcome of the previously instituted Title Suit No.22 of 2017 to be crucial, decisive and significant, solely on the ground that its final decision would take a long time.

¶2

Court's answer

The learned trial Judge failed to apply the tests laid down under Section 10 of the Civil Procedure Code before rejecting the prayer for stay, and the reasons given for rejection are not approved by this Court.

¶2

Ratio / Principle

The impugned order no.52 dated 23rd March, 2023 calls for interference and is set aside.

¶4

Key takeaways

The learned trial Judge is directed to decide the Section 10 application for stay afresh after giving an opportunity of hearing to the respective parties, by passing a reasoned order as expeditiously as possible, preferably within eight weeks from communication of this order.ratio¶4

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Civil Order under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by the defendant in a licensee-eviction suit (Title Suit No.28 of 2017, Bolpur) challenging rejection of his application under Section 10 of the Civil Procedure Code seeking stay of that suit pending Title Suit No.22 of 2017, wherein he seeks declaration that a deed of gift is void ab initio, declaration of title and permanent injunction. The trial court had recorded that the outcome of Title Suit No.22 of 2017 was crucial, decisive and significant, but rejected stay solely because a final decision there would take a long time. Held, the trial Judge failed to apply the tests laid down under Section 10 CPC and the reasons for rejection were not approved; the impugned order no.52 dated 23.03.2023 was set aside and the trial Judge directed to decide the stay application afresh after hearing both sides, by a reasoned order, preferably within eight weeks. Application allowed; no order as to costs; none appeared for the opposite party despite service.

¶1

14.03.2024 Item No.07 RP Ct. No.7

¶2

CO 3152 of 2023

¶3

Sri Susanta Dutta Vs. Sri Prasanta Dutta

¶4

Mr. Biswajit Hazra Mr. Archisman Sain Sk. Nadeem Ahmed

¶5

……for Petitioner

¶6

The defendant in a suit for eviction of a licensee has filed this application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order no.52 dated 23^rd March, 2023 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), 1^st Court, Bolpur. By the order impugned the application under Section 10 of the Civil Procedure Code filed by the petitioner herein stood rejected.

¶7

The petitioner herein filed a suit, being Title Suit No.22 of 2017, before the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), 1^st Court, Bolpur, districtBirbhum praying for declaration that the deed of gift void ab initio and for declaration of title and permanent injunction. The opposite party herein filed a suit for eviction upon revocation of license against the petitioner herein, which is registered as Title Suit No.28 of 2017 before the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), 1^st Court, Bolpur. The petitioner filed an application under Section

¶8

¶9

10 of the Civil Procedure Code praying for stay of all further proceedings of the Title Suit No.28 of 2017. The learned trial Judge after observing that the outcome of the Title Suit No.22 of 2017 is crucial, decisive and significant rejected the application for stay only on the ground that it will take a long time for final decision to be taken in Title Suit No.22 of 2017. The learned trial Judge, in the considered view of this Court, failed to apply the tests laid down under Section 10 of the Civil Procedure Code before rejecting the prayer for stay. The reasons for rejection of the application for stay is not approved by this Court

¶10

In spite of service, none appears to oppose this application.

¶11

For the reasons as aforesaid, the impugned order calls for interference and the same is liable to be set aside and is, accordingly, set aside. The learned trial Judge is directed to decide the said application for stay afresh after giving an opportunity of hearing to the respective parties and by passing a reasoned order as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of eight weeks from the date of communication of this order.

¶12

¶13

With the aforesaid observation and direction, CO 3152 of 2023 stands allowed. There shall, however, be no order as to costs.

¶14

(HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA, J.)

Shri Susanta Dutta v. Shri Prashanta Dutta

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri Susanta Dutta v. Shri Prashanta Dutta

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

Smt. Swagata Swarnakar Maity Vs Sri Sourav Maity

Kishore Nag and Ors. Vs Swapan Nag and Ors.

Susmita Chowdhury Vs Uttam Mihir Roy and Anr.

Sri Debashis Dey and Ors. Vs Sri Biswanath Ghosh and Anr.

Madan Kumar Goel Vs State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission , Kolkata

Arpita Guin Vs State of West Bengal & Ors.