Dismissed¶22

Sailajananda Ghoshal v. Basanti Ghoshal

Calcutta HC9 Jun 2025SAT/91/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Sailajananda Ghoshal v. Basanti Ghoshal; SAT 91 of 2025; CAN 1 of 2025; suit for eviction; defence struck out under Section 7(3) West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997; right of defendant to cross-examine plaintiff's witnesses after defence struck out; suit fixed on ex parte board since November 18, 2017; Section 151 CPC application for copy of examination-in-chief filed January 19, 2019; dilatory tactics and repeated adjournments; dismissal under Order XLI Rule 11 CPC; no substantial question of law; no order as to costs; decided 09.06.2025.

What did the court decide?

The timelines indicate that the defendant/appellant got ample opportunity to appear and contest the suit for over two years, from the defence being struck out under Section 7(3) in the year 2015 till November 18, 2017, before the suit was ultimately fixed for ex parte hearing.

Sailajananda Ghoshal Vs Basanti Ghoshal — Calcutta HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶22

Issue for consideration

Whether a defendant whose defence has been struck out under Section 7(3) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 remains entitled to cross-examine the plaintiff's witnesses and advance arguments, and whether the learned Trial Judge wrongly denied that opportunity by fixing the suit outright on the ex parte board. +1 more

¶14

Court's answer

¶16

Ratio / Principle

The fixing of the suit for ex parte hearing was only due to the protracting conduct and repeated adjournments sought by the defendant, and was not connected in any manner with the striking out of the defence under Section 7(3) of the 1997 Act.

¶18

Key takeaways

The defendant filed the application in January, 2019, only two years after the suit was fixed on the ex parte board, to create an alibi for not contesting the suit, purportedly showing that the non-availability of the examination-in-chief deterred him from appearing previously.ratio¶19
Since the suit was fixed on the ex parte board only due to the dilatory tactics adopted by the defendant/appellant, unconnected with the striking out of the defence, the court was unable to accede to the arguments of the appellant in that regard.ratio¶20
No question of law, let alone substantial, is involved in the present appeal.ratio

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

SAT 91 of 2025 (with CAN 1 of 2025) dismissed under Order XLI Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure by a Bench of Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya and Uday Kumar, JJ., on 09.06.2025. The appeal challenged a judgment of affirmance whereby the defendant/appellant's defence in a suit for eviction stood struck out under Section 7(3) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 (since 2015). Holding that the defendant had ample opportunity to contest for over two years before the suit was fixed on the ex parte board on November 18, 2017; that the ex parte fixation was due solely to his protracting conduct, repeated adjournments and dilatory tactics, and was unconnected with the striking out of the defence; that his January 19, 2019 application under Section 151 CPC for a copy of the plaintiff's examination-in-chief was made to create an alibi; and that no question of law, let alone substantial, was involved, the appeal was dismissed, with CAN 1 of 2025 consequentially dismissed and no order as to costs.

¶1

AD- 39 Ct No.16 09.06.2025 (SSS)

SAT 91 of 2025

With

CAN 1 of 2025

Mr. Sailajananda Ghoshal Vs.

¶6

Smt. Basanti Ghoshal

¶7

Mr. S. Datta, Mr. A. K. Raidani

¶8

….For the Appellant.

¶9

Mr. Tarique Quasimuddin, Ms. Sanchita Chaudhuri, Mr. Adnan Lodi

¶10

…For the Respondent.

¶11

The present appeal has been preferred against a judgment of affirmance, whereby the defence of the defendant/appellant in a suit for eviction was struck out under Section 7(3) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997.

¶12

Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that despite the defence being struck out under Section 7(3), the defendant is very much entitled to crossexamine the witnesses of the plaintiff and to point out the lacunae in the plaint case and advance

¶13

¶14

arguments in respect of the suit. However, in view of the defence being struck out in the present case, the learned Trial Judge did not grant any opportunity to the defendant/appellant to so cross-examine and/or advance his arguments and fixed the suit outright on the ex parte board.

¶15

However, contrary to the arguments of learned Counsel for the appellant, we find from the impugned judgment of the appellate court that the suit was fixed on the ex parte board by the learned Trial Judge since November 18, 2017. On query of the court, learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant’s defence was struck out under Section 7(3) as long back as in the year 2015. Although an application was filed by the defendant/appellant under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, seeking a copy of the examination-in-chief of the plaintiff on the allegation that in the absence of such examination-in-chief, no cross-examination could be conducted, the said application was filed only on January 19, 2019.

¶16

Thus, the timelines indicate that the defendant/appellant got ample opportunity to appear and contest the suit for over two years from the defence being struck out under Section 7(3) in the year 2015, till November 18, 2017, before the suit was ultimately fixed for ex parte hearing. Hence, the fixing of the suit for ex parte hearing in the present

¶17

¶18

case was only due to the protracting conduct and repeated adjournments sought by the defendant and not connected in any manner with the striking out of the defence under Section 7(3) of the 1997 Act, the two of which the defendant/appellant is seeking to mix up.

¶19

The defendant grew wiser, only two years after the suit being fixed on the ex parte board, and filed an application in January, 2019, to create an alibi for not contesting the suit and/or seeking adjournments in the interregnum, thereby purportedly seeking a copy of the examination-in-chief in order to prove to the court that it was the non-availability of such examination-in-chief which deterred the defendant from appearing in the suit previously and/or contesting the same.

¶20

However, if the defendant was so eager to contest the suit, he should have done so between the defence being struck out under Section 7(3) in the year 2015 and the suit being fixed on the ex parte Board in November, 2017. Having not done so and the suit being fixed on the ex parte board only due to the dilatory tactics adopted by the defendant/appellant, unconnected with the striking out of the defence, we are unable to accede to the arguments of the appellant in that regard. Hence, we do not find any question of law, let alone substantial, involved in the present appeal.

¶21

¶22