- (1.) TWO revisional applications have been filed by the defendants/petitioners for challenging two orders passed by the Learned Trial Judge in the plaintiffs suit for declaration of his tenancy right, recovery of possession and damages and also for permanent injunction. By an order dated 20th September, 2006, the defendants application for rejection of plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code was rejected on contest. The said order is the subject matter of challenge in civil revisional application being C.O. No. 3755 of 2007.
(2.) BY subsequent order dated 23-02-2010, the plaintiffs application for amendment of plaint was allowed by the Learned Trail Judge. The said order is under challenge in Civil Revisional application being C.O. No. 1100 of 2010. Since both the applications are, to some extent, related to each other, both the applications are taken up for hearing together. Though subsequent to the dismissal of the defendants application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code, the plaint was amended at the instance of the plaintiffs for introducing a challenge with regard to validity and legality of an earlier agreement between the parties which formed part of a compromise decree passed in an earlier suit between the same parties concerning the rival claims of the parties with regard to the self same suit property but since Mr. Roy Choudhury, learned Senior Counsel, appearing for the plaintiffs/opposite parties, submits before this Court that his client now wants to abandon his application for amendment of plaint, the impugned order by which the plaintiffs application for amendment of plaint was allowed by the Learned Trial Judge, is taken out of the record and thus the amendment which was allowed will remain ineffective. As such the original plaint as it stood prior to such amendment will stand in the filed and this Court is thus required to consider the defendants application for rejection of the plaint on the basis of the plaintiffs pleading in the original plaint. Thus this Court holds that the revisional application being C.O. No. 1100 of 2010 which is directed against the order allowing amendment passed by the Learned Trial Judge, has now become infructuous and the same is disposed of accordingly.
(3.) LET me now consider the merit of the other revisional application being C.O. No. 3577 of 2007 in the context of the above discussion. Since it is settled law that while considering the defendants application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the Court cannot consider any other statement save and except the pleadings made out by the plaintiffs in the plaint for ascertaining attraction of the provisions of Order 7 Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code, this Court will restrict its consideration with regard to the plaint pleadings only. Let me give a short background of this case for proper appreciation of the dispute involved in this revisional application. The plaintiff filed the said suit on the basis of the following cause of action;- Initially, Sen Babus namely opposite parties nos. 4 to 7 filed a suit for ejectment against the plaintiff namely Sudip Kumer Kanjilal for recovering khas possession from their tenant viz. the said Kanjilal. The said suit was dismissed ex parte. Sen Babus challenged the said decree in appeal being Title Appeal No. 102 of 1995 before the Appeal Court. During the pendency of the said appeal, Sen Babus entered into a development agreement with Sasanka Chatterjee, namely the defendant no.5 of the present suit, for developing the suit property.;