MOHIT LAL ROY Vs. SISIR KUMAR ROY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Two sets of tenants in adjacent to two shop rooms at the ground floor of a R.C.C. building at Central Road, Silchar, filed two similar suits separately against the same set of defendants with identical pleadings praying for declaration that they are monthly tenants under defendant No.3 of the both the suits, namely, Sri Debasish Roy, who derived title from defendants No. 1 and 2 and also for consequential declaration that they are not liable to be removed from the tenanted premises otherwise then in due course of law.

(2.) The suit filed by two plaintiffs, namely, Sri Mohit Lal Roy and Sri Sushil Kumar Roy, was registered as T.S. No. 134/2010 whereas the second suit, instituted by Sri Rupak Paul, was registered as T.S. No. 133/2010 in the court of learned Munsiff No. 1 at Silchar. The common defendants No. 1 and 2, in both the suits, filed one set of written statement separately in each of the suits while defendant No. 3, the holder of derivative title, filed separate written statement of his own in the two suits. Thereupon issues were framed and the case was set for hearing stage.

(3.) At this stage, an application with identical averments was filed in each of the two suits by the contesting defendant No. 3 stating that the defendant No. 3 'is desirous to file additional written statement with counter-claim for substantiating some pertinent facts which are necessary for the ends of justice'. With this statement without any further elaboration or statement of material fact as to what pertinent facts were sought to be brought on record, the defendant No. 3 made prayer for additional written statement with counter claim. This application was opposed by the respective plaintiffs in both the suits separately, inter alia, on the grounds that there was neither any provision of law to file additional written statement as well as counter-claim at the whim of the party and that the application was not maintainable. The objection taken by the plaintiffs in these two suits was that once written statement was filed, the defendant had no right to file a counter claim at belated stage. The learned Court after hearing parties allowed the application on 25.04.2013 in T.S. No. 134/2010 and on 05/03.2013 in T.S. No. 133/2010. These two orders, namely, order dated 25.04.2013, passed in T.S. No. 134/2010 and order dated 05.03.2013, passed in T.S. No. 133/2010 have been separately challenged by two revision petitions, namely, CRP(I/O) No. 57/2013 and CRP(I/O) No. 58/2013 respectively by the plaintiffs in this court. Since the subject matter and the point, urged in both the petitions, are identical and they are against the same defendants, both the petitions are taken together for hearing.