IN RE : PROVAT KR. GHOSE Vs. CALCUTTA POLICE ASSOCIATION & ORS.
LAWS(CAL)-1996-1-39
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Decided on January 10,1996

IN RE : PROVAT KR. GHOSE Appellant
VERSUS
CALCUTTA POLICE ASSOCIATION And ORS. Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

PUSHPA DEVI SARAF VS. JAI NARAIN PARASRAMPURIA [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

J.K. Bhattacharyya, J. - (1.)The matter is taken up for hearing as on the day's list and by consent of the parties it is disposed of by the following order :
(2.)Heard the submission of the Ld. Senior Advocate Mr. S.P. Roy Chowdhury appearing with Mr. J.R. Chatterjee and Mr. Badal Saha for the petitioner and Mr. Nigam Chakraborty, Ld. Senior Advocate appearing with Mr. Asoke Chakraborty and Mr. Sushil Ranjan Sen. Considered the materials on record.
(3.)By the instant application under Sec. 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure the petitioner, who was the plaintiff in the suit, challenged order No.8 dated 3.1.96 passed by the Ld. Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Calcutta, in Misc. Case No. 2624 of 1995 rejecting the prayer of the plaintiff for transfer of the case from the Court of the Ld. Judge, 13th Bench of the City Civil Court. The brief conspects silhouetted behind the present revision is that the plaintiff filed a suit for a declaration that the purported meeting to be held on the basis of the purported notice dated 22nd Aug., 1995, published in the Calcutta Gazette dated 22nd Aug., 1995, issued by the General Secretary, Calcutta Police Association, defendant No. 2, is illegal, mala fide, in violation of the Rules of the Calcutta Police Association etc. etc. Permanent injunction was also prayed for and the suit was registered therein the Court of the Ld. Judge, 13th Bench, City Civil Court as Title Suit No. 2989/95. In that suit, by an application under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure the plaintiff prayed for ad-interim injunction. The matter was heard on 8.11.95, 10.11.95, 15.11.95, 16.11.95, 17.11.95, 21.11.95, 23.11.95 and 28.11.95 and the hearing of the application was continuing. On the last date of hearing, as has been mentioned earlier, an application was moved before the Ld. Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Calcutta which was registered there as Misc. Case No. 2464/85, praying inter alia, for transfer of the suit being title Suit No. 2989/95 and the petition was made under section 10 of the City Civil Court Act, under section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure read with Sec. 151 of that Code. It has been alleged in that petition as stated in paragraph 2 that the Ld. 13th Bench, City Civil Court, Calcutta, is failing to appreciate the case of the petitioner, meaning the plaintiff by not applying his mind and by making certain comments during the hearing of the case which completely breaks down morale of the plaintiff. In paragraph 6 of the revisional application it has been alleged, inter alia, that on the first date of the hearing of the injunction petition, the Ld. Chief Judge 13th Bench of City Civil Court, Calcutta made certain comments in the open Court before starting the argument of the plaintiff. The comments that have been made is that the Ld. Judge commented that the injunction petition has no merit and that he will vacate the interim order. According to the petitioner in this revision, that gave a reasonable apprehension in the mind of the petitioner that he will not get proper justice from that Court. But from the petition under section 10 of the City Civil Court Act and Sec. 24 and 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure which is one an affirmed it appears it has been alleged that the Ld. Judge 13th Bench of the City Civil Court, Calcutta, failed to appreciate the case of the plaintiff. That version is available on record, that is from the order impugned. From the order impugned it appears that as no specification of the comment has been made in the petition under section 10 as indicated earlier, the Ld. Chief Judge was pleased to ask from the appearing Advocate of the plaintiff-petitioner as to the nature of the comment that was made by the Trial Judge and it was made known to the Ld. Judge that the comment that was made was on the basis of a query by the Ld. Trial Judge that "Is the post of a President an ornamental one?" The Ld. Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Calcutta, in the impugned order found that the plaintiff- petitioner could not make out a case for transfer as no comment was made but a query or whether the Ld. Chief Judge was thinking aloud and no order of transfer of the case is warranted and accordingly he dismissed the application for transfer. That order is the subject-matter of the revision.
;


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