- (1.) THE Judgment of the Court was delivered by : banerjee, J.-On June 25,1987 the appellant filed a suit as against the respondents, inter alia, praying for a decree for Rs, 7,07,70,835. 00 against the respondent No. 1 along with interest and other reliefs. According to the appellants, the plaint was defective, as such the writ of summons could not be lodged with Sheriff of Calcutta within fourteen days from the date of filing of the suit as required under Rule 6 Chapter VIII of the High court Rules, Original Side, Calcutta. The appellant did not take any step contemporaneously for service of the writ of summons upon the respondent no. 1 by lodging the same with Sheriff of Calcutta. It was contended on behalf of the appellants that despite filing of the suit they had been negotiating with the respondent No. 1 for an amicable settlement. Hence, they could not take any contemporaneous step in the suit. In 1992 the appellant filed a writ petition, inter alia, asking for recall and/or cancellation of notice dated March 3, 1992 issued by the Senior Divisional Manager of the respondent No. 1. In the writ petition the appellant disclosed the factum of filing of the suit. They, however, contended that in view of the subsequent development the suit had become infructuous. They undertook to withdraw the suit and proceed with the writ petition which according to them, was comprehensive in nature. The learned Single Judge by judgment and order dated September 7, 2001 in C. O. No. 8118 (W) of 1992 dismissed the writ petition. While doing so, His Lordship observed as follows :- "since the other reliefs are virtually relating to grant of claim of the petitioners arising out of fire took place in the petitioners' premises along with the interest, this Court is not inclined to adhere anything in respect thereto sitting in the writ jurisdiction but behaving like fact finding Court. Such type of claim cannot be entertained under the writ jurisdiction. It has to be adjudicated by a regular Civil Court or forum to come to a definite conclusion in this regard. On that score, Mr. P. K. Mallick, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, addressing before the Court fairly submitted that such relief cannot be granted under the writ jurisdiction as rightly pointed out by the Court and a suit is already existing in between the parties. But the relief as primarily made hereunder is not for the same but for cancellation, revocation, withdrawal or recalling of the impugned notice on 3. 3. 92 as aforesaid to which there cannot be any embargo in proceeding with the same under the writ jurisdiction. "
(2.) IN 1998 the appellant filed an application before the learned Master for extending the returnable date of the writ of summons. Paragraph 4 of the said petition is quoted below :- "your petitioner states that the said defects were subsequently rectified by the Advocate-on-Record of your petitioner. Under Rule 6 of Chapter VIII of the High Court. Original Side Rules, unless an extension of time is obtained, the writ of summons is to be delivered to the Sheriff within 14 days from the filing of the plaint for the purpose of effecting service on the defendants. Since that period expired, the writ of summons are still lying with the Department of this Hon'ble court and has not been lodged with the Sheriff for service. "
(3.) THE learned Master extended the time as prayed for. No step was taken despite such order being passed.;