Subrata Talukdar, J. - (1.) THE present application under Article 227 of the Constitution is directed against the order dated 10th July, 2014 passed by the Ld. 9th Bench, City Civil Court at Calcutta in Title Suit No. 381 of 1996. By the order impugned No. 123 dated 10th July, 2014 the Ld. Trial Court observed that by previous Order No. 122 dated 27th June, 2014 it was, inter alia, directed that preliminary issues regarding maintainability of the suit may be framed on the next date. The Ld. Trial Court also dismissed the prayer of the plaintiff on the point that while the suit was filed in 1996, the written statement was filed as late as on 23rd December, 2013 compelling the Ld. Lawyer for the plaintiff to raise objection with regard to the acceptance of the written statement.
(2.) ON the contrary Ld. Lawyer for the defendant drew the attention of the Ld. Trial Court to a petition dated 16th September, 2013 by which the Ld. Court was pleased to direct the plaintiff to provide a copy of the plaint to the defendant. After receipt of the copy of the plaint the written statement was submitted. Therefore, the Ld. Trial Court agreed with the submission of the defendant that no delay was committed in filing the written statement. Accordingly, written statement was accepted and the preliminary issues were framed. The petitioner before this Court is the plaintiff. The suit was filed for declaration and permanent injunction. The plaintiff claimed declaration that he is a moiety shareholder in respect of the suit premises which the plaintiff claims to be in joint ownership with the defendant Nos. 1 and 2, who are his blood brothers.
(3.) SRI Aniruddha Chatterjee, Ld. Counsel appearing for the petitioner plaintiff submits that the Ld. Trial Court committed a gross error by accepting the written statement in 2013, thereby wiping out a delay of 18 years. Sri Chatterjee argues that the least the Ld. Trial Court could have done was to seek an explanation for the delay of 18 years in filing the written statement.;