MADHABILATA DUTTA Vs. RAMESWAR PRASAD GUPTA
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
RAMESWAR PRASAD GUPTA
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.)THIS Civil Order arises out of an application under Section 115 of the C. P. C. and is directed against the Order No. 211 dated 5. 6. 91 passed by the Learned Judge, 2nd Bench, City Civil Court, calcutta in Title Suit No. 1573 of 1977. One Baidehi Gupta, since deceased, filed T. S. No. 1573/77 in the city Civil Court at Calcutta against the revision petitioners and the opposite party no. 8 for specific performance of an agreement dated 29. 5. 77 for sale of premises No. 11a, Ram Kumar Rakshit Lane, P. S. Burrabazar, Calcutta -7. The defendant nos. 1 to 7 who are the petitioners in the revisional application disclosed in their written objection against the petition for temporary injunction filed by the plaintiffs that the subject matter of the Suit had already been transferred to one Kisen Lal Agarwal. The then plaintiff, Baidehi Gupta filed a petition for adding Kisen Lal agarwal and one S. C. Palit as defendant nos. 9 and 10 respectively and that prayer was allowed. The plaintiffs also made a prayer for a new declaration that the particular Deed of Sale made by the defendant nos. 1 to 8 in the Suit in favour of the defendant no. 9 be cancelled. The petition for amendment of the prayer portion was made about 7/8 years after the addition of the petitioner nos. 9 and 10 as parties to the Suit. The order allowing the amendment of the prayer portion by the Learned Trial Court was challenged in this Court and this Court was pleased to confirm the order in revision. Thereafter, additional written statement was filed by the defendants raising the question whether the reliefs claimed in the amended plaint were barred by the limitation. Additional issue being issue No. 11 was raised on that point. Thereafter the revision-petitioners filed an application for hearing the said additional issue as the preliminary issue under Order 14 Rule 2 C. P. C. The plaintiffs/opposite parties filed written objection against the said application. The opposite party no. 9 supported the contention of the revisionists. The Learned Court below has been pleased by the impugned order to reject the contention of the revisionists.
(2.)BEING aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said order the revisionists have come before this Court.
(3.)THEIR main contention is that the learned Trial Judge acted illegally and with material irregularity and failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in him in passing the impugned order.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.