Ashis Kumar Chakraborty, J. - (1.) The subject matter of challenge in this revisional application, at the instance of the defendant in the suit is the order dated February 15, 2017 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Durgapur in Money Suit No. 41 of 1998. By the impugned order, the learned Court below rejected the application filed by the petitioner under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short "the Code").
(2.) Shortly stated, the facts giving rise to this revisional application are that the opposite party has filed the Money Suit No. 41 of 1998 (hereinafter referred to as "the said suit"), before the learned Court below claming decrees for Rs.4,36,351/- together with interest thereon at the rate of 18% per annum and for a further sum of Rs.75,978/- against the petitioner. In the suit, the defendantpetitioner filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code for rejection of the plaint on the ground that as on the date of filing of the said suit, there was no Board of Directors of the opposite party-company and the person who verified the plaint on behalf of the opposite party-company was not competent to file the plaint. By order dated October 25, 2005 the learned Court below the said rejection application and such decision was carried by the petitioner in revision before this Court. By order dated April 05, 2012 a learned Single Judge of this Court rejected the revisional application. The petitioner challenged the said order dated April 05, 2012 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court by filing a Special Leave Petition which was also dismissed on January 07, 2014. However, by the order dated January 07, 2014 the Hon'ble Supreme Court granted liberty to the petitioner to raise all the questions including the question of maintainability of the said suit filed before the learned Court below. The petitioner also filed his written statement in the said suit.
(3.) On June 20, 2014 the petitioner filed a fresh application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code before the learned Court below for rejection of the plaint filed in the suit on the ground that the money claim raised in the said suit as against him arose only after his service was terminated and all his dues were paid by way of full and final settlement. The other ground urged by the petitioner in the said application was the same that he urged in the first application which was rejected by the learned Court below on October 25, 2005 and uphold by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The opposite party contested the said application. In its affidavit-in-opposition to the said application, the opposite party denied all the allegations of the petitioner for rejection of the plaint filed in the suit.;