BISHAD KUMAR JANA Vs. SMT. ANJALI JANA AND ORS.
LAWS(CAL)-2016-10-13
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Decided on October 04,2016

Bishad Kumar Jana Appellant
VERSUS
Smt. Anjali Jana And Ors. Respondents

JUDGEMENT

SIDDHARTHA CHATTOPADHYAY,J. - (1.) Challenging the legality and validity of the order dated 23.09.2015 passed by the ld. Civil Judge, (Junior Division), Kakdwip, South 24 Parganas, the defendant/petitioner has filed this application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India on the ground that the learned Court below failed to appreciate the position of law and particularly failed to take into account the limitation point in its proper perspectives.
(2.) According to him, the learned Trial Court failed to appreciate that he has obtained a decree in 1976 and the said decree has not been challenged before any Court of law. He further contended that the said decree has attained its finality and therefore no cause of action arises in the plaint filed by the present opposite party/plaintiff.
(3.) As against this, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party has contended that plaint discloses a specific cause of action and has also clearly mentioned about the date of knowledge. He further specified by saying that he came to know about the decree passed in T.S. 521 of 1976 after getting an information from the B.L.L.R.O. concerned. Within shortest possible time, he has filed this case bearing T.S. 226/2013 and from that view point the suit is not barred by limitation. He has also contended that he had filed the suit T.S. 226 of 2013 and prayed for setting aside the decree passed in T.S. 521 of 1976 as the said decree was obtained by practising fraud. He categorically submitted that no notice was served upon them when the suit of T.S. 521 of 1976 was initiated. He has categorically submitted that a wrong address has been shown in the plaint and the said summon was not actually served upon him, because at the relevant point of time he had been residing at Medinipur. Suppressing all these facts, the present petitioner had got the decree in T.S. 521 of 1976. He further stated that there is plea of fraud in his case and so it does not come within the purview of limitation. In fine, he has prayed for dismissal of the said application.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.