Bijay Kr Maity and Anr. Vs Gauranga Mal and Ors. — Writ and Judicial Review | Calcutta HC (2025)

Bijay Kr Maity and Anr. Vs Gauranga Mal and Ors. — Writ and Judicial Review | Calcutta HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

One last opportunity to the petitioners (plaintiffs) to produce their witness in Title Suit No. 14 of 2012, subject to payment of Rs. 15,000/- as cost to opposite party no. 1 on or before October 29, 2025; on compliance the trial judge to examine the plaintiffs' witness on the next date; failing payment or production of the first witness, the order stands automatically recalled and the civil revision application stands dismissed.

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioners, who are the plaintiffs in Title Suit No. 14 of 2012 (a suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction), should be permitted a final opportunity to lead their evidence after the trial court closed the plaintiff's evidence, and on what conditions.

Court's answer

The petitioners (plaintiffs in the suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction) were allowed one last opportunity to produce their witness, subject to the condition that they pay a cost of Rs. 15,000/- to the opposite party no. 1 on or before October 29, 2025.

Ratio / Principle

If the petitioners pay the cost within the time limit and produce their witness on the next date fixed in TS No. 14 of 2012, the learned trial judge shall permit the examination of the witness of the plaintiffs on that date and proceed thereafter in accordance with law.

Key takeaways

If on the next date fixed in the suit the plaintiff fails to produce his first witness or fails to pay the cost as directed, the order shall stand automatically recalled without any further reference to this court and the civil revision application shall stand dismissed.ratio¶23
The learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Haldia was requested to dispose of Title Suit No. 14 of 2012 as expeditiously as possible without granting any unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties.ratio¶24

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Civil revision application (CO 2442 of 2025) under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by the plaintiffs, Bijay Kumar Maity & Anr., against the order dated June 19, 2025 of the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Haldia in Title Suit No. 14 of 2012 (suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction), whereby the evidence of the plaintiff was closed and a date fixed for the defendants' evidence. The trial court had fixed the suit for peremptory hearing on November 19, 2018, and from March 1, 2019 till June 19, 2025 the petitioners had prayed for adjournments and produced no witness. Noting that the evidence of the defendants' witness had not yet commenced, the court allowed the petitioners one last opportunity to produce their witness, conditional on payment of Rs. 15,000/- as cost to the opposite party no. 1 on or before October 29, 2025; upon such payment and production of the witness on the next date, the trial judge is to examine the plaintiffs' witness and proceed in accordance with law. If the plaintiff fails to produce his first witness or to pay the cost on the next date, the order stands automatically recalled without further reference to this court and the revision application stands dismissed. The trial court was requested to dispose of the suit expeditiously without unnecessary adjournments to either party. Application allowed.

Court No. 6

CO 2442 of 2025

(265719)

17.09.2025 Bijay Kumar Maity & Anr. (AD 9) Vs.

Gauranga Mal & Ors.

(S. Banerjee)

Mr. Dyutiman Banerjee Mr. Vishal Mallick Mr. Salil Maity

…for the petitioners

Mr. Golam Mastafa Mr. Tarasankar Samanta

…for the opposite parties

Although this matter is appearing under the heading ‘Extension of Interim Order’, with the consent of the respective parties, the civil revision application is taken up for hearing by treating the same as on the day’s list.

This application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is at the instance of the plaintiffs and is directed against an order dated June 19, 2025 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Haldia in Title Suit No. 14 of 2012. By the order impugned, the evidence of the plaintiff was closed and a date was fixed for evidence of the defendants witness.

After going through the impugned order this court finds that the suit was fixed for peremptory

2

hearing on November 19, 2018 and on and from March 1, 2019 till June 19, 2025, the petitioners have prayed for adjournments and also failed to produce any witness to depose in this case. For such reason the learned trial judge closed the evidence of the plaintiff.

Mr. Banerjee learned advocate appearing for the petitioners submits that the petitioner did not pray for adjournment on all the occasions as indicated in the impugned order. However, on some occasions the petitioners had to pray for adjournment on medical ground. He submits that the petitioners may be allowed to lead evidence subject to the conditions that may be fixed by this court.

Learned advocate appearing for the opposite parties vehemently opposes such prayer. He submits that the record would indicate that the plaintiff is trying to delay the hearing of the suit by taking adjournment on frivolous grounds.

However, learned advocate appearing for respective parties uniformly submit that the evidence of the defendant’s witness have not yet started.

Considering the fact that the suit is for declaration of title and permanent injunction, the petitioners who are the plaintiffs in the said suit, may

3

be allowed one last opportunity to produce the witness subject to the condition that the petitioners shall pay a cost of Rs. 15,000/- to the opposite party no. 1 on or before October 29, 2025. If the petitioners pay the aforesaid amount on account of cost within the time limit indicated hereinbefore and produces his witness on the next date fixed in TS No. 14 of 2012, the learned trial judge shall permit the examination of the witness of the plaintiffs on that date and shall proceed thereafter in accordance with law.

With the above observations and directions, CO 2442 of 2025 stands allowed.

It is, however, made clear that if on the next date fixed in the suit the plaintiff fails to produce his first witness or fails to pay the cost as directed hereinbefore, this order shall stand automatically recalled without any further reference to this court and the civil revision application shall stand dismissed.

The learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Haldia is requested to dispose of the Title Suit No. 14 of 2012 as expeditiously as possible without granting any unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties.

(Hiranmay Bhattacharyya, J.)