Prasenjit Mandal, J. - (1.) CHALLENGE is to the order dated March 6, 2009 passed by the learned Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Calcutta in Misc. Case No.4701 of 2008.
(2.) THE short fact is that the petitioner as plaintiff instituted a suit being Title Suit No.148 of 1996 for declaration and injunction with regard to his right, title and interest of his tenanted premises being room no.9A, first floor at 7, Lions Range, Kolkata " 700 001 under the landlord, that is, Kolkata Stock Exchange Association Limited, opposite party no.2. This suit is pending before the learned Judge, City Civil Court, Sixth Bench, Calcutta. He also filed another title suit being Title Suit No.513 of 1997 for declaration and injunction and this suit is pending before the learned Judge, City Civil Court, Seventh Bench, Calcutta. THE defendant no.1 also filed a counter suit being Title Suit No.1940 of 1998 for declaration and injunction against the petitioner claiming tenancy in respect of the selfsame premises under the selfsame landlord and this suit is pending before the learned Judge, City Civil Court, Seventh Bench, Calcutta. Thus, out of the three suits, two suits are pending before the learned Judge, City Civil Court, Seventh Bench, Calcutta and the other suit, before the learned Judge, City Civil Court, Sixth Bench, Calcutta over the selfsame subject matter. Under the circumstances, the petitioner filed an application under Section 10 of the City Civil Courts" Act, 1953 for analogous hearing of the three suits before the learned Chief Judge and that application was converted into the Misc. Case No.4701 of 2008 which was dismissed by the learned Chief Judge. Being aggrieved by the said order of dismissal, this application has been preferred. Now, the question is whether the learned Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Calcutta is justified in rejecting the said application. Upon hearing the submission of the learned Advocate of both the sides and on perusal of the materials on record, I find that the facts as stated above is not in dispute. Three suits over the selfsame subject matter against the selfsame landlord is pending in two different courts. Out of the three suits, the Title Suit No.148 of 1996 has progressed to a considerable extent. Evidence has already been recorded on behalf of the plaintiff in this suit. When the plaintiff experienced difficulties in producing the documents and tendering evidence in the other suit, that is, Title Suit No.513 of 1997, he filed the application for analogous hearing. Out of the above three suits, the parties to the Title Suit No.513 of 1997 and the Title Suit No.1940 of 1998 are the same but the parties of the Title Suit No.148 of 1996 are not similar to those of the other two suits. In Title Suit No.148 of 1996, the plaintiff filed the suit for declaration of title and injunction against five persons including the Kolkata Stock Exchange Limited but the other defendants, that is, the defendant nos.1 to 4 are altogether different from the earlier two suits and they are not the parties in the other two suits. This being the position, if the three suits are tried analogously, there will not be any convenience rather there may be difficulties in proceeding with the suit because the parties are not the same and the defendant nos.1 to 4 may have different stand in support of the defence and in such a situation, the Court may experience difficulties in the disposal of the suit. There may be also delay in proceeding with the suit. So, the prayer for analogous trial, I hold, has been rightly rejected by the learned Trial Judge.
(3.) SINCE all the three suits are old and they relate to the selfsame property, they are ready for hearing and the documentary evidence may be one set of originals, if the originals are proved in one suit, the certified copies of the same could well be considered and marked exhibit in the other suits. However, in order to avoid conflict of decisions in respect of the selfsame suit property amongst the parties, I am of the view that the three suits should be tried by the one and same learned Bench of the City Civil Court. So, a direction shall be issued upon the learned Chief Judge, City Civil Court to withdraw the three suits from the respective courts and to transfer the same to one Bench as he thinks fit for proper and efficient disposal of the suit. The impugned order cannot be supported in full. Accordingly, this application is disposed of in the manner as indicated above. The learned Chief Judge, City Civil Court shall do the needful as per above observations and he shall exercise such powers within two weeks from the date of communication of this order. Considering the circumstances, there will be no order as to costs.;