- (1.) The opposite party no.1 instituted Title Suit No. 811 of 1998 in the City Civil Court at Calcutta praying for a declaration that a purported gift deed, executed on March 27, 1965, has been made fraudulently and is forged and void, and also for cancellation of such deed. The learned Judge of the 7th Bench of the said Court is in seisin thereof.
(2.) Petitioners, who are the defendants 4 and 5 in the suit, made an application on December 13, 2010 praying for rejection of the plaint of the aforesaid suit in terms of provisions contained in Order 7 Rule 11, Code of Civil Procedure (hereafter the Code). The learned Judge of the trial Court by order no. 33 dated January 29, 2011 rejected the prayer for rejection of the plaint on contest. Feeling aggrieved thereby, the petitioners have invoked the revisional jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution by preferring the instant application.
(3.) Mr. Roy Chowdhury, learned senior advocate for the petitioners, placed the entirety of the plaint and contended that the plaint ought to have been rejected by the learned trial Judge and he grossly erred in this regard. He contended that the suit filed by the opposite party no. 1 is barred by limitation as well as the provisions of Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 (hereafter the Act) and the learned Judge has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit in view of Section 16 of the Code.;