Anil K.Sen, J. - (1.) This is a revisional application at the instance of the plaintiff in Money Suit No. 8/72 of the court of the learned subordinate judge, Jalpaiguri, and it raises a short point as to whether further proceedings in the suit are liable to be discontinued in view of the provision of Section 16M of the Tea (Amendment) Act, 1976. The facts relevant for deciding the point at issue are not in dispute.
(2.) The plaintiff instituted the aforesaid suit for the enforcement of a money claim as against the defendant, opposite party, Peshok Tea Co. Ltd., a public limited company registered under the Indian Companies Act carrying on the business of production, manufacture and sale of tea. It is not in dispute that pending the suit in October, 1976, the Central Govt. in exercise of its powers under Section 16E(1)(a) of the said Act authorised taking over of the management of two tea estates known as Peshok Tea Estate and Looksham Tea Estate, both owned and possessed by the defendant-company, by the issue of two notifications in that regard. In that view, the defendants moved the learned subordinate judge for the stay of further proceedings of the above suit in terms of Section 16M of the said Act and by an order dated March 29, 1978, the learned subordinate judge directed stay of further proceedings in the suit. It, however, appears that subsequently, the defendants prayed for a dismissal of the suit in view of the said provision, namely, Section 16M of the said Act, but the learned subordinate judge overruled the said prayer and directed continuance of the stay. The learned subordinate judge further directed the plaintiff to take the necessary permission from the Central Govt. in terms of Section 16M to proceed with the suit before further proceedings can be reopened. The plaintiff having failed to obtain the necessary permission, the learned subordinate judge by his order dated December 10, 1980, directed discontinuance of the suit.
(3.) It is only in that background that the plaintiff filed an application for permitting him to proceed with the suit. The plaintiff took the stand that Section 16M as aforesaid does not really stand in the way of the plaintiff proceeding with the suit and the suit as framed was not liable to be discontinued under the said provision. This application has been rejected by the order impugned dated February 11, 1981, and the learned subordinate judge has taken the view that, in view of the provision of Section 16M, unless, the plaintiff obtains the necessary permission from the Central Govt., they cannot proceed with the suit and further proceedings in the suit must necessarily be discontinued. Feeling aggrieved, the plaintiff has moved the present revisional application.;