Mrs Gulab Manot and Ors. Vs Sree Kamakhya Tea Company Pvt. Ltd. — Calcutta HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Mrs Gulab Manot and Ors. Vs Sree Kamakhya Tea Company Pvt. Ltd. — Calcutta HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Impugned Order No.58 dated 31st March, 2022 in Ejectment Suit No.57 of 2016 set aside; learned Trial Judge requested to re-hear the application under Section 151 CPC after due opportunity to the parties, considering the application, written objection and reply thereto, and to dispose of it expeditiously as the suit is pending since 2016; interim order, if any, vacated; revisional application disposed of.

Issue for consideration

Whether Pramod Kumar Sharaf was duly authorised by the defendant company or not — the only issue before the learned Trial Court. +1 more

Court's answer

The only issue before the learned Trial Court was whether Pramod Kumar Sharaf was duly authorised by the defendant company or not.

Ratio / Principle

The learned Judge did not deal with the written objection challenging the authorisation letters (particularly paragraph 5), although he relied on those letters in the defendant's written objection (particularly paragraph 7).

Key takeaways

The learned Trial Judge dealt with none of the authorisation issue — the Court found no single word in the impugned order addressing whether Sharaf was duly authorised by the defendant company.ratio¶¶21
On this score the impugned order was liable to be set aside, and the impugned order dated 31st March, 2022 passed in Ejectment Suit No.57 of 2016 stands set aside.ratio¶¶23
The learned Trial Judge was requested to re-hear the application under Section 151 CPC after giving due opportunity to the parties and considering the application, the written objection and the reply thereto.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court at Calcutta, Civil Revisional Jurisdiction — CO 1115 of 2022 (Bibhas Ranjan De, J., 18.03.2025): Revision against Order No.58 dated 31st March, 2022 of the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), 2nd Court, Alipore, South 24-Parganas in Ejectment Suit No.57 of 2016, rejecting the plaintiffs'/petitioners' (Mrs. Gulab Manot & Ors.) application under Section 151 CPC on the ground that they had no locus under Section 7(2) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, not being authorised by the defendant (Sree Kamakhya Tea Company Pvt. Ltd.). The Trial Judge relied on two authorisation letters dated 16th January, 2017 and 8th October, 2013 (in the defendant's written objection, paragraph 7) under which Pramod Kumar Sharaf was alleged to be authorised to act for the Company, but failed to deal with the plaintiffs' written objection challenging those letters (paragraph 5), although the only issue before him was whether Sharaf was duly authorised by the defendant company. Held: the impugned order stands set aside; the Trial Judge was requested to re-hear the Section 151 application after giving due opportunity to the parties and considering the application, written objection and reply thereto, and to dispose of it expeditiously as the suit is pending since 2016; interim order, if any, vacated.

64 18.03.2025 Ct. No.22 pg.

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CIVIL REVISIONAL JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE

CO 1115 of 2022

Mrs. Gulab Manot & Ors. Vs.

Sree Kamakhya Tea Company Pvt. Ltd.

Ms. Manju Agarwal, Sr. Counsel

Ms. Anju Manot

… For the petitioners

Mr. Balaram Neogi

… For the opposite party

This revisional application has been filed assailing the Order No.58 dated 31^st March, 2022 passed in connection with Ejectment Suit No.57 of 2016 wherein the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), 2^nd Court, Alipore, South 24-Parganas, rejected one application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (in short, CPC) filed by the plaintiffs/petitioners herein on the ground that the petitioners of the application under Section 7(2) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act have no locus to submit the same as they have not been authorised by the defendant/Sree Kamakhya Tea Company Private Limited.

The learned Judge in dealing with the application under Section 151 of the CPC dealt with two authorisation letters dated 16^th January, 2017 and 8^th October, 2013 whereby one Pramod Kumar Sharaf was

2

alleged to have been authorised to take all steps on behalf of the Company in the suit.

Ms. Manju Agarwal, learned senior counsel, appearing on behalf of the petitioners has referred to the written objection against the application under Section 151 of the CPC as well as reply thereto on behalf of the plaintiffs/petitioners and contended that both the authorization letters were challenged in the written objection filed by the plaintiffs/petitioners herein but the learned Judge did not deal with those objections in the order impugned.

Heard both the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties.

From the impugned order, it appears that the learned Judge relied on the authorisation letters dated 16^th January, 2017 and 8^th October, 2013 relied on behalf of the defendant/opposite party herein in the written objection, particularly, in paragraph 7, but the learned Judge did not deal with the written objection challenging those authorisation letters, particularly, in paragraph 5.

On careful scrutiny of the application under Section 151 of the CPC along with objection thereto as well as the reply to the objection, I find that the only issue before the learned Trial Court was that whether Pramod Kumar

3

Sharaf was duly authorised by the defendant company or not.

Unfortunately, I do not find any single word dealing with the issue by the learned Trial Judge.

On the above score, this order is liable to be set aside.

Accordingly, the impugned order dated 31^st March, 2022 passed in connection with Ejectment Suit No.57 of 2016 stands set aside.

Learned Trial Judge is requested to re-hear the application under Section 151 of the CPC after giving due opportunity to the parties and considering the application under Section 151 of the CPC, written objection and reply thereto.

Learned Judge is also requested to dispose of the application as expeditiously as possible as the suit is pending since 2016.

With the above observation, the revisional application stands disposed of.

Interim order, if any, stands vacated.

Interlocutory application, if any, also stands disposed of.

Parties are at liberty to intimate this order to the learned Trial Court forthwith for necessary information.

4

All parties shall act on the basis of a server copy of this order duly downloaded from the official website of this Court.

Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties, upon compliance of necessary formalities.

(Bibhas Ranjan De, J.)