CO/376/2019
2021 Latest Caselaw 6585 Cal

             IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
              CIVIL REVISIONAL JURISDICTION



Present:

The Hon'ble Justice Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee.


                             C.O. 376 of 2019
                             SHANTI PRASAD DE
                                  VERUS
                          ALOKE KUMAR PAL & ANR.


For the petitioner:            Mr. Rabindranath Mahato,
                               Mr. Aritra Shankar Roy.


For the opposite party:        None.



Heard on:                      20.12.2021



Judgement on:                  23.12.2021



Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee, J.

1. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the order dated August 30,

2018, September 05, 2018, September 29, 2018 and October 03, 2018

passed in the J. Misc. Case No. 06 of 1995 pending before the learned Civil

Judge (Junior Division) Bishnupur, present revisional application has been

preferred by the Order No. 103 dated October 10, 2018 the learned Trial

Court was pleased to accept the written objection filed by the opposite

parties of the J. Misc. Case. No. 06 of 1995.

2. The background of the case in a nutshell is that, the petitioner Shanti

Prasad Dey filed an application under Order VIII of the West Bengal Land

Reforms Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as "the said Act of 1955" in short)

being J. Misc. Case No. 6 of 1995 against the opposite parties Aloke Kumar

Pal and Tilak Kumar Pal praying for pre-emption in respect of the suit

property. On 13th September 1996 the opposite parties entered appearance

in a said proceeding but ultimately they did not contest and as such pre-

emption application under Section 8 of the said Act of 1955 was allowed ex-

parte.

3. Subsequently the opposite party filed an application under Order 9

Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure praying for setting aside the ex-parte

order dated 6th October 2001 but the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) at

Bishnupur by its order dated 24th June 2011 rejected the application under

Section 5 of the Limitation Act and also an application under Order 9 Rule

13 on contest. Being aggrieved by that order dated 24th June, 2011 the

opposite parties preferred misc. appeal being Misc. Appeal No. 03 of 2012

before the learned District Judge Bankura. By his judgment and order dated

19th March, 2015, learned District Judge, Bankura allowed the aforesaid

Misc. Appeal. No. 03 of 2012 with costs of Rs. 10,000/-(Rupees Ten

Thousand) and the learned District Judge was further pleased to direct the

opposite parties to file written statement/objection within 30 days from the

date of receipt of the order passed by the learned Trial Court and to dispose

of the matter within six months from the receipt of order without granting

any adjournment.

4. On April 20, 2015 the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) at

Bishnupur received the aforesaid judgment dated 19th March, 2015 passed

in Misc. Appeal No. 03 of 2012 and the same was shown to the learned

Advocate for both the parties. Despite a specific direction made by the

learned District Judge in Misc. Appeal No. 03 of 2012 which was also shown

to the learned advocate for both the parties, the opposite parties did not file

their written statement/objection within 30 days from April 20, 2015.

Since the opposite party did not file their written statement within the

stipulated time framed by learned District Judge as above, the learned Civil

Judge (Junior Division) Bishnupur was pleased to reject the prayer made by

the opposite party for filing written statement which was filed only on 4th

May, 2017, but surprisingly on December 08, 2017 when the opposite

parties filed written statement/objection to the application under Section 8

of the said Act of 1955 the learned Judge of the Trial Court has accepted

the same.

5. On December 05, 2018 the petitioner filed an application under

Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure praying for recalling the said

order whereby the learned Trial Court had accepted written

statement/objection in spite of flouting the specific direction made in the

judgment dated 19 March, 2015 passed by the learned District Judge. On

20th September, 2018 the opposite party filed an application for time to file

objection to the aforesaid application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil

Procedure and on September 29, 2018, the learned Judge allowed such

prayer and fixed October 03, 2018 for filing objection by the opposite

parties. On 3rd October 2018 the opposite parties not pressed the written

statement/objection to the application under Section 8 of the said Act of

1955 filed by them on December 08, 2017 but since the opposite parties

not pressed the written statement/objection to the petition under Section 8

of the said Act of 1955, so on October 03, 2018 the learned Civil Judge

(Junior Division) at Bishnupur passed an order to the effect that there is no

necessity for hearing of the application under Section 151 of the Code of

Civil Procedure filed by the present petitioner for recalling order of

acceptance of written statement/objection passed by Trial Court. After

passing the aforesaid order on 3rd October, 2018 the opposite parties again

filed written statement/objection to the application under Section 8 of the

said Act of 1955 but surprisingly same was accepted by learned Trial Court

ignoring all earlier orders and without assigning reason and as such being

aggrieved by the aforesaid order the present revisional applications has

been preferred.

6. Considered submission and also perused the copy of the order

sheets. It is revealed from the Order No. 93 dated 4th May, 2017 that learned

Civil Judge (Junior Division) at Bishnupur was pleased to reject the prayer

made by the opposite party for filing written statement/objection in J. Misc.

Case No. 06 of 1955 / J. Misc. Case No. 23 of 2003 and was further pleased

to fix 05/07/2017 for ex-parte hearing. Subsequently, on 03/10/2018 the

opposite party has made not pressed the written statement/objection filed

by him on 08/12/2017 and as such the Court observed that there was no

necessity for hearing the petition dated 05/09/2018 but surprisingly the

written statement/objection filed by the opposite party was accepted and

the case was posted for peremptory hearing on 19/01/2019.

7. From the above backdrop, it is clear that the learned District Judge by

his order dated 19th March, 2015 was pleased to direct the opposite parties

to file written statement within 30 days from the receipt of the order and it

also appears that disregarding that order when the written statement was

not being filed till 05/07/2017 the learned Trial Court was pleased to reject

the prayer for filing written statement/objection. Now, once the prayer for

filing written statement/objection has been rejected by the learned Trial

Court, it can sit to review/reverse its own order and to pass a completely

contradictory order without assigning any reason as to why he had

contradicted his earlier order dated 4th May, 2017.

8. The object of assigning time frame for filing written statement by the

learned District Judge was to prevent the opposite parties to cause delay in

filing written statement. Order VIII Rule 1 has been amended and a specific

direction in respect of time frame for filing written statement has been

mentioned therein. It may be that considering this provision of law the

learned Trial Court by his order dated 4th May, 2017 was justified in passing

the rejection order vide Order No. 93, but subsequently when the written

statement/objection was again filed, it was accepted by the Court without

assigning reason. The petitioner challenged the order of acceptance of

written statement by filing a recall petition. When the opposite party has not

pressed the written statement/objection filed by him on 08/12/2017 which

was filed against the application under Section 8 of the said Act of 1955, it

is not understandable why the opposite parties were subsequently allowed

to file written statement/objection against the application under Order 8 of

the said Act of 1955 without assigning any reason.

9. However, considering all the above mentioned anomalies and also

considering the fact that in a roundabout way the learned Trial Judge has

reviewed, and/or reversed his own order without assigning any reason, but

justice demands that when the suit has already been posted for peremptory

hearing, if the order for acceptance of written statement by the Trial Court

keeps uninterfered by this appellate authority, the highest prejudice that

may cause to the petitioner would be that the case would be disposed of on

merit after contested hearing and nothing more. But at the same time, I

am not unmindful to the fact that the direction about filing written

statement within a specified time has not only been flouted but also the

direction made by the learned First Appellate Court about disposal of the

case within six months, has also been flouted for the same reason and for

which the opposite parties are liable to pay cost and I am also of the view

that a specific direction for disposal of the case within a time frame is

required to be passed, in view of the fact that the pre-emption case was

initiated in the year 1995.

10. In view of the above, I dispose of the present revisional application

with a direction that the opposite party will pay cost of Rs. 20,000/-

(Rupees Twenty Thousand) to the petitioner within one month from the date

of receipt of order for not filing written statement within the time scheduled

by the learned First Appellate Court and with a further direction upon the

learned Trial Court to dispose of the J. Misc. Case No. 06 of 1995 (C. No. 18

of 2015) positively within a period of six months from the date of receipt

of the record without granting any unnecessary adjournment, to either of

the parties. In terms of the above, without touching the merit of the case

and without interfering the order of acceptance of written

statement/objection by the learned Trial Court,(except imposition of cost) for

the reason as stated above, C.O. 376 of 2019 is disposed of accordingly.

As prayed for, let the copy of the order be sent to the learned Trial

Court by special messenger at the cost of the petitioner.

Urgent Photostat certified copy of this judgment, if applied for, be

supplied to the parties upon compliance with all requisite formalities.

(AJOY KUMAR MUKHERJEE, J.)