Satish Kumar Agarwal Vs Raman Bahri and Anr. — Calcutta HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

Satish Kumar Agarwal Vs Raman Bahri and Anr. — Calcutta HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Costs imposed by the impugned order reduced from Rs.30,000/- to Rs.20,000/-, payable to the opposite parties within two weeks from date; urgent Photostat certified copies of the order to be supplied on application subject to compliance with all requisite formalities.

Issue for consideration

Whether the learned Trial Judge's dismissal of the petitioner's application for analogous hearing of Title Suit No. 632 of 2015 with Misc. Case No. 985 of 2015 was proper, i.e., whether the order impugned (Order No.155 dated July 30, 2024) calls for interference in revision. +1 more

Court's answer

The learned Trial Judge has rightly dismissed the application for analogous hearing, as it is aimed to delay the disposal of the eviction suit.

Ratio / Principle

For the aforesaid reason, the order impugned does not call for any interference.

Key takeaways

Considering Mr. Karmakar's submission that the petitioner would face immense financial hardship, the Court reduced the imposed costs from Rs.30,000/- to Rs.20,000/- payable to the opposite parties within two weeks from date.ratio¶22

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

CIVIL REVISION – C.O. 3192 of 2024, High Court at Calcutta (Civil Revisional Jurisdiction), decided 10.09.2024 by Biswajit Basu, J. – DISMISSED. The petitioner, having by operation of Section 2(g) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 lost the Act's protection, had sued for declaration of tenancy right (Title Suit No. 3043 of 2009), which was dismissed for default; his restoration application under Order IX Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure stood registered as Misc. Case No. 985 of 2015 before the 11th Bench, City Civil Court at Calcutta. The opposite parties sued for eviction (Title Suit No. 632 of 2015) describing him as trespasser. His application therein for analogous hearing of the eviction suit with the restoration Misc. Case was dismissed by the learned Trial Judge (Order No.155 dated July 30, 2024) with costs of Rs.30,000/-. Holding the dismissal 'rightly' made because the application was 'aimed to delay the disposal of the eviction suit', the Court found the order impugned did 'not call for any interference'; on counsel's plea of 'immense financial hardship' the Court reduced the costs to Rs.20,000/- (Twenty thousand rupees only) payable to the opposite parties within two weeks from date, and dismissed C.O. 3192 of 2024.

10.09.2024

Item No.27 DL

Ct.19

A.J. IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CIVIL REVISIONAL JURISDICTION

C.O. 3192 of 2024

Sri Satish Kumar Agarwal

–Vs–

Sri Raman Bahri & Anr.

Mr. Rahul Karmakar, Mr. Santosh Kumr Ray, Ms. Rituparna Sanyal, Ms. Antalina Guha.

……for the petitioner.

Mr. Harsh Tiwari, Mr. Hamidul Haque. ……for the opposite parties.

The petitioner, by the operation of Section 2(g) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997, has lost the protection of the said Act, nonetheless had filed a suit for declaration of his tenancy right being Title Suit No. 3043 of 2009, the said suit got dismissed for default.

The application of the petitioner under Order IX Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been registered as Misc. Case No. 985 of 2015 before the learned Judge, 11^th Bench, City Civil Court at Calcutta.

The opposite parties have filed a suit being Title Suit No. 632 of 2015 before the selfsame Court for eviction of the petitioner describing him as trespasser in the suit property.

The petitioner in the said suit has filed an application for analogous hearing of it along with Misc. Case No. 985 of 2015.

The learned Trial Judge by the order impugned being Order No.155 dated July 30, 2024 has dismissed the said application with costs of Rs.30,000/-.

2

The learned Trial Judge has rightly dismissed the said application as it is aimed to delay the disposal of the eviction suit.

The order impugned, for the aforesaid reason, does not call for any interference.

Mr. Karmakar, learned Advocate the petitioner submits that the petitioner would face immense financial hardship to pay the said costs, he prays for reduction of it.

Considering such submission of Mr. Karmakar,

the said costs is reduced to Rs. 20,000/- (Twenty thousand rupees only) to be paid to the opposite parties within two weeks from date.

With the above, C.O. 3192 of 2024 is dismissed.

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

(Biswajit Basu, J.)