Siddhartha Chattopadhyay, J. - (1.) Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the Order bearing No. 16 dated 8th May, 2015 passed by the learned Civil Judge, (Senior Division), Second Court at Barasat in Title Suit No. 235 of 2013, the present petitioner/defendant has filed this application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
(2.) According to the petitioner, the learned Trial Judge failed to construe the provision under Order VII Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code in its proper perspectives. It has been specifically stated in the petition that the learned Trial Judge failed to appreciate that the suit was filed praying for specific performance of an unregistered agreement for assignment of a flat at the first floor of the building with the proportionate land. It is also contended therein that the suit is hopelessly barred by the law of limitation as the said specific performance of an unregistered document was executed on 26th September, 1992. Amongst others, the present petitioner also vehemently challenged that the plaintiffs' such suit is not maintainable on the ground that it was leased out property and the said land was given under a lease deed by the State Government and there are prohibitory clauses. In terms of the agreement vide Clause 2(7) Clause 2(8), Clause 2(11) and Clause 2(12) of the lease deed there is absolute prohibition in regard to partition, sub -let, assignment etc. without the consent of the State of West Bengal. He also contended that if an agreement is opposed to public policy then in terms of Sec. 23 of the Indian Contract Act the same is liable to be rejected.
(3.) In the application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code the present petitioner/defendant has mentioned those grounds and prayed for rejection of the plaint which was turned down by the learned Court below vide its impugned order.;