- (1.) This application is the instance of the plaintiff and is directed against the order dated December 13, 2007 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Second Court, Alipore in Title Suit No. 59 of 1999 thereby rejecting an application of the plaintiff for reconsideration of its order dated May 18, 2007 thereby passing an order of analogous trial of the three suits.
(2.) The defendant/opposite party was a tenant under the plaintiff in respect of a premises in suit being the flat No. 55 at 1A, Ballygunge Circular Road at a rental of Rs. 1200/- per month according to English calendar month. The defendant defaulted in payment of rent and as such the plaintiff terminated the tenancy of the opposite party by a notice to quit and thereafter the plaintiff filed the Title Suit No. 59 of 1999 for ejectment against the defendant/opposite party. The plaintiff/petitioner filed another suit bearing Title Suit No. 396 of 1998 in the Court of the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Second Court, Alipore against one Javed Mohammad. That was also transferred to the Court of the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Second Court, Alipore. The defendant filed one suit being the Title Suit No. 363 of 1998 before the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Second Court, Alipore. Subsequently, the said suit was also transferred to the Court of the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Alipore. By an order dated May 18, 2007, the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) directed that these three suits shall be heard analogously. While disposing of the C.O. No. 3954 of 2005, Hon'ble Justice P. K. Ray directed for earlier disposal of the Title Suit No. 59 of 1999 within a period of six months from the date of order, i.e., from November 22, 2005. Now, the grievance of theplaintiff/petitioner is that because of the analogous trial, the disposal of the suit for ejectment is being delayed and for which he filed the application dated December 13, 2003 which was rejected by the order impugned. Being aggrieved, the plaintiff/petitioner has come up with this application.
(3.) Mr. Mukherjee, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the plaintiff/petitioner contends that the Title Suit No. 59 of 1999 has been filed for ejectment and there is urgency in passing appropriate orders in this suit. This Suit is at the stage of examination of the P.Ws. and in fact cross-examination of the P.W.1 on behalf of the plaintiff has been done in part. At that stage, on the prayer of the defendant/opposite party, the learned Trial Judge has passed the order for analogous hearing of the three suits. The other Title Suit No. 396 of 1998 filed by the plaintiff is for declaration and injunction against one Javed Mohammad. The defendant/opposite party of this application filed the Title Suit No. 363 of 1998 for a decree of declaration that the plaintiff is entitled to enjoy its tenancy and also permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their men and agents from interfering with the peaceful possession of the plaintiff in respect of the tenancy at flat No. 55 at 1A, Ballygunge Circular Road. Therefore, Mr. Mukherjee contends that parties of the three suits are not same. The reliefs claimed for in the three suits are also not same. The evidence of all the three suits cannot be the same. Mr. Mukherjee also contends that as per order of this Hon'ble Bench dated November 22, 2005, the suit was to be disposed of within six months from the date of the order dated November 22, 2005. Therefore, the order for analogous hearing was not proper but his application for reconsideration was rejected and this causes hardship to the plaintiff. He also contends that the Title Suit No. 59 of 1999 is at the stage of cross-examination of the P.Ws. While in other two suits, the issues have not been framed as yet and so they are at the prematured stage for beginning of the trial. So, if any order for analogous trial exists, it will create delay in the disposal of the suit for ejectment.;