KRISHNAMOY GIRI Vs. LAKSHMI RANI PAUL & ORS
LAWS(CAL)-2016-8-181
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Decided on August 23,2016

KRISHNAMOY GIRI Appellant
VERSUS
LAKSHMI RANI PAUL And ORS Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) If some of the stands on the same footing and if few of them have been taken off from the category of the defendants, the other defendants should not be treated differently. In a suit for declaration of tenancy right filed against the defendant nos. 1 to 4, on a disclosure of the fact that they have divested their right, title and interest in respect of the suit premises in favour of the defendant no. 5, the said defendant was added as a party therein. The defendant nos. 1 to 3 jointly filed an application for striking out their names from such category, which was eventually allowed by an order dated 21st April, 2014.
(2.) Admittedly the petitioner did not challenge the said order by moving higher up. Similar application was taken out by the defendant no. 4, which was disposed of by passing the impugned order in the same line and tune with the order dated 21st April, 2014. The moment the petitioner realizes that the order dated 21st April, 2014 have played an important and vital role in adjudication of an application filed by the defendant no. 3, an application for recalling of the said order is taken out, which according to the learned advocate for the petitioner is still pending before the Trial Court.
(3.) The fact remains that the said order has not been recalled as yet by the Trial Court. Many things are said by the learned advocate for the petitioner on the recalling application, which this Court feels not to go into the merit of the same, as the matter is subjudice before the Trial Court and any observations so made herein may have some persuasive effect in deciding the said application. This Court, therefore, refrains itself from going into the nitty-gritty of the said application and it is open to the Trial Court to decide the same in accordance with law. Reverting back to the present situation the defendant no. 4 has no independent right, title and interest than the defendant nos. 1 to 3. They jointly owned the property and jointly divested their right, title and interest in favour of the defendant no. 5.;


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