Disposed¶12

Mangobinda Das and Anr. v. Sudhangsu Sekhar Das and Ors.

Calcutta HC1 May 2025CO/1436/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Article 227 challenge to rejection of Order 7 Rule 11 CPC plaint-rejection application; suit maintainability contested because plaintiff's sons' earlier partition suit (2017) over same property was dismissed for default; held such issues decidable only by trial on evidence; rejection upheld; application disposed without interference; expeditious-disposal request to Civil Judge (Jr. Div.), 1st Court, Contai for Title Suit No. 186 of 2021; no costs; single-judge bench of Hiranmay Bhattacharyya, J.

What did the court decide?

Application disposed of without interfering with the impugned order (rejection of the Order 7, Rule 11 application stands); trial judge requested to dispose of Title Suit No. 186 of 2021 expeditiously without unnecessary adjournments; no order as to costs. ¶12

Mangobinda Das and Anr. Vs Sudhangsu Sekhar Das… — Writ and Judicial Review | Calcutta HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶12

Issue for consideration

Whether the plaint in Title Suit No. 186 of 2021 is maintainable given that the plaintiff's sons had earlier filed a partition suit against the defendant over the selfsame property which was dismissed for default, and whether such issues can be decided in an application under Order 7, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. +1 more

¶6

Court's answer

The issues raised in the Order 7, Rule 11 application cannot be decided in such an application; they have to be adjudicated by trial on evidence.

¶10

Ratio / Principle

The learned trial judge was right in rejecting the application under Order 7, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

¶10

Key takeaways

C.O. 1436 of 2025 was disposed of without interfering with the order impugned.ratio¶12
The learned Civil Judge (Jr. Div.), 1st Court at Contai was requested to dispose of Title Suit No. 186 of 2021 as expeditiously as possible without granting any unnecessary adjournments to either of the parties.ratio¶12

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Petitioners (defendants in the suit) filed this application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against Order No. 16 dated February 28, 2025 of the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Div.), 1st Court at Contai, whereby their application under Order 7, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure in Title Suit No. 186 of 2021 was rejected. Their ground was that the plaintiff's sons had filed a partition suit against the defendant in 2017 over the selfsame suit property, dismissed for default, rendering the instant suit unmaintainable. The Court held that such issues cannot be decided in an Order 7, Rule 11 application and must be adjudicated by trial on evidence, and that the trial judge was right in rejecting the application. C.O. 1436 of 2025 was disposed of without interfering with the impugned order, with a request to the trial judge to dispose of the suit expeditiously without unnecessary adjournments to either party. No order as to costs. Bench: Hiranmay Bhattacharyya, J.

¶1

D/L- 10 01/05/2025 Ct. No.-6 Aritra C.O. 1436 of 2025

¶2

Shri Mangobinda Das & Anr. Vs. Shri Sudhangsu Sekhar Das & Ors.

¶3

Mr. Krishna Dasgupta Mr. Surajit Maity Ms. Mandira Barman .…for the petitioner

¶4

This application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is at the instance of the defendant and is directed against an order being No.16 dated February 28, 2025 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Div.), 1^st Court at Contai in Title Suit No.186 of 2021.

¶5

By the order impugned the application under Order 7, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure stood rejected.

¶6

The grounds raised in the application under Order 7, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure is that the sons of the present plaintiff had filed one partition suit against the present defendant in 2017 in respect of the selfsame suit property which was dismissed for default.

¶7

The learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that in view thereof the instant suit is not maintainable in the eye of law.

¶8

After going through the grounds raised in the application under Order 7, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, this Court is of the considered view that such

¶9

¶10

issues cannot be decided in an application under Order 7, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The same has to be adjudicated by trial on evidence. To the mind of this Court, the learned trial judge was right in rejecting the application under Order 7, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

¶11

At this stage the learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that a direction be passed upon the learned trial judge to dispose of the suit expeditiously. He further submits that the petitioner has already filed the written statement.

¶12

In the light of the aforesaid submission made by the learned advocate for the petitioner, CO 1436 of 2025 is disposed of without interfering with the order impugned and by requesting the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Div.), 1^st Court at Contai to dispose of the Title Suit No.186 of 2021 as expeditiously as possible without granting any unnecessary adjournments to either of the parties.

¶13

There will be no order as to costs.

¶14

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

¶15

(Hiranmay Bhattacharyya, J.)

Mangobinda Das and Anr. v. Sudhangsu Sekhar Das and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mangobinda Das and Anr. v. Sudhangsu Sekhar Das and Ors.

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

Harish Chandra Dhara Vs Chapal Kumar Bhattacharyya

Debnath Dutta Vs Samir Sain and Ors.

Bela Rani Kheria and Anr. Vs Urmila Kheria and Ors.

Madhu Sutodia Vs Harpreet Raur Kohili

Bhabani Mallick Vs Swapan Kr Mallick

Pankaj Kumar Nayak Vs Krishna Sarkar and Ors.