AJOY CHOPRA Vs. BURMAN CONS CO. PVT LTD
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Burman Cons Co. Pvt Ltd
Click here to view full judgement.
Arun Kumar Dutta, J. -
(1.)This revisional application under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as Code) is directed by the petitioner - defendant (hereinafter referred to as Defendant) against the order dated 6th May, 1996, passed by the Learned Judge, 9th Bench, City Civil Court at Calcutta, in T.S. No. 3329 of 1995 before him, for the reasons stated and on the grounds made out therein.
(2.)The facts giving rise to the relevant suit and the instant revisional application, so far as relevant for the present purpose, may shortly be stated as follows :
The Opposite party - plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as plaintiff) bid filed the relevant suit against the Defendant before the Court below on 20th Sept., 1995 praying the Court for recovery of possession of the suit property, as described and detailed in the Schedule thereto, after evicting the Defendant therefrom, as also for permanent injunction restraining the Defendant from interfering with the Plaintiff's access, ingress in and egress out therefrom, along with the other reliefs prayed for therein, on the pleas taken therein. On the plaint having been so filed by the plaintiff before the Court below, the Office had reported that in view of the prayer (a) valuation for possession is required to be furnished in paragraph - 14, along with concise statement. The Registrar of the Court below had accordingly directed the Plaintiff to take steps in terms of the relevant Office Report by 30th Nov., 1995 The Plaintiff having failed to take steps in terms of the Office Report was directed on 30th Nov., 1995 to take steps by 12/01/96 showing cause for the delay therefor. The plaintiff having failed to take steps and having failed to show cause on 12/01/96, the Registrar of the Court below had directed the record to be placed before the Bench on 2/2/96 for order. On that day the learned Judge In - charge of the 9th Bench had directed the Plaintiff to show-cause by 15/4/96 as to why the Plaint shall not be rejected. The plaintiff having again failed to show cause by the said date the Court below had rejected the plaint for the plaintiff's failure to comply with the aforesaid Office Report dated 20/09/95. The plaintiff had thereupon filed two applications before the Court below on 25/04/96, one under section 151 of the Code for recalling the order dated 15/4/96 rejecting the plaint and the other under Order 9 Rule 4 of the Code for restoration of the Suit for the reasons stated therein. The application filed by the Plaintiff under Order 9 Rule 4 of the Code not having been pressed by it was rejected 'as not pressed' on 11.6.96. The other application filed by the plaintiff under section 151 of the Code for recalling the order dated 15/4/96 rejecting the plaint was eventually heard by the Court below on 6th May, 1996, the plaintiff's aforesaid application was allowed and the order dated 15/04/96 rejecting the plaint was recalled for the reasons recorded in the impugned order passed on that date (6.5.1996).
(3.)Aggrieved by the aforesaid impugned order the defendant has moved the instant revisional application on the grounds made out therein.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.