Siddhartha Chattopadhyay, J. - (1.) Challenging the order No.1 dated 17.05.2008 and all subsequent orders including order No.9 dated 17.04.2009 passed by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, 2nd Court Alipore in Money Suit No.340 of 2008, the petitioner has filed this revisional application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner has prayed for quashing of the proceedings of the suit filed by the opposite party/plaintiff bearing Money Suit No. 340 of 2008, as the same is vexatious and frivolous.
(2.) According to the petitioner, the plaint does not disclose a specific cause of action in its real sense. On the contrary, the plaintiff/opposite party has concealed some vital issues to fetch a favourable order from the Trial Court.
(3.) Before delving into the merit of the application, the plaint is required to be looked into. According to the plaintiff, he being an I.P.S. Officer held a prestigious post and he also received medal from the President of India. At the relevant point of time, he was Deputy Inspector General of Police (Home guards) West Bengal. Many people of his native place (Ghazipur) reposed trust upon him and gave him a considerable amount in cash in the year 2004 for purchasing landed properties in the name of several persons. He and his wife then contacted a land broker Abdur Rahim Gazi, son of Late Rustam Ali Gazi, for purchasing land in his neighbouring village of Hathisala. The plaintiff's wife, through the plaintiff, had given a huge amount to Abdur Rahim Gazi by instalments in between 25.02.2004 to 01.09.2004 on good faith. But the said Abdur Rahim Gazi, in connivance with the Chairman-cum-Managing Director of the first defendant (who used to be a family friend), and his brother fraudulently and deceitfully used their money by purchasing 76 bighas of land in the names of the three Pvt. Ltd. Companies by investigating Rs.69,70,425/- and also misappropriated the balance amount of Rs.32,79,750/-. Against these so called acts, the plaintiff filed complaint case bearing No. C8738 of 2007 against the first defendant and seven others in September 2007 in the learned Court of C.J.M. Alipore, who in turn, had sent the complaint to the Judicial Magistrate, 8th Court, Alipore for inquiry. The learned Judicial Magistrate concerned had issued summons and pursuant to their summons all the defendants appeared therein and obtained bail. The plaintiff has also filed a suit praying for a declaration that they are the real owners of the landed properties which were fraudulently purchased by the defendants in the names of three Pvt. Ltd. Companies. He was also favoured with an order of status quo in respect of possession of the suit property. The defendant retaliated such act of the plaintiff by publishing a scandalised, mischievous and defamatory advertisement in 'Ananda Bazar Patrika' on 05.03.2008. According to him, the said publication, on behalf of the M/s. Pataka Industries Pvt. Ltd., is defamatory in nature and he has been defamed in the eyes of the people at large. According to him, there was an agreement between the Chairman-cum-Managing Director of the 1st Defendant company i.e. Mustak Hossain, for establishing a public charitable trust for education which was to be named as Future Freedom Foundation . At the relevant point of time the defendant had an office at Salt Lake and for that reason the present plaintiff applied for registration of a trade mark for the proposed public charitable trust. But the 1st Defendant, after getting a letter from the Registrar of trade marks, improved the said authority in a negative manner and this time he came to know what has been done by the defendant. He admitted that the proposed body Future Freedom Foundation never came into existence. The 1st Defendant never intimated the plaintiff about the further development of the registration. As a matter of fact, the plaintiff had requested in writing to the 1st Defendant for getting an information about the advertisement but the 1st Defendant remained as a passive on-looker. According to the plaintiff, the said advertisement made by the defendant is a defamatory advertisement and was intended to wilfully cause damage to his honour and prestige to a great extent. In such circumstances, he had to file the plaint claiming of Rs.20 crores as damages for such defamation.;