Calcutta High Court
B.P. Poddar Hospital And Medical ... vs Union Of India And Ors on 1 March, 2021
OC 6
ORDER SHEET
IA NO.GA/1/2020
In
CS/35/2020
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
COMMERCIAL DIVISION
B.P. PODDAR HOSPITAL AND MEDICAL RESEARCH LIMITED
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
BEFORE:
The Hon'ble JUSTICE DEBANGSU BASAK
Date: 1st March, 2021.
(Via Video Conference)
Appearance:
Mr. Ranjan Deb, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Debdut Mukherjee, Adv.
Mr. Meghojit Mukherjee, Adv.
Ms. Sweta Mohanty, Adv.
Mr. Dhiraj Kr. Trivedi, Adv.
Mr. R.M. Roy, Adv.
The Court: Affidavits filed in Court be taken on record.
The plaintiff seeks judgment on admission by this application in a suit for
recovery of money.
Learned senior advocate appearing for the plaintiff submits that, the
defendants were tenants under the plaintiff. The plaintiff is entitled to rent at the
enhanced rate from the defendants for the period of their occupation
commencing from October 1991. The defendants acknowledged the enhanced
rates in writing. The plaintiff filed a writ petition in which a report was called for.
He refers to the report. He submits that, the plaintiff is entitled to the difference
in the enhanced rentals as appearing from the report. He relies on page 113 of
the application, which is a part of that report. He submits that, the report
specifies the period and the quantum of rent that is required to be paid by the
defendants for such period. He submits that the report is dated February 15,
2016. The writ petition was disposed of on June 30, 2016 by requiring the
plaintiff to execute the decree passed by the earlier Division Bench. On appeal,
the Division Bench, by an order dated June 25, 2019, allowed the plaintiff to
institute appropriate proceedings for realization of the sums that may be due to
the plaintiff. Leave was granted to the plaintiff to rely upon the report filed by the
income tax authorities and other documents. The plaintiff was granted leave to
invoke Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 and apply before the appropriate
forum for exclusion of the time spent in the writ jurisdiction of the High Court to
pursue the writ petition and the appeal.
The defendants are represented.
The claim of the plaintiff, in the instant suit, is on account of difference of
rent that the plaintiff is entitled for the period commencing from the month of
October, 1991. The plaintiff relies upon a report, which was submitted in a writ
petition filed by the plaintiff. Such report which is dated June 15, 2016 and
which is at page 113 of the application delineates the period of time and the
quantum of rent that the plaintiff is entitled to. The period of time commences
from October, 1991 and is upto October, 2007. The last period of October, 2007
is valid till 2010 when the defendants vacated the property concerned.
The writ petition of the plaintiff being WP No.854 of 2007 was disposed of
on June 30, 2016. An appeal was preferred therefrom. The Appeal Court issued
the following directions:
"In view of the stand taken by the income-tax department, leave is
given to the appellants to institute appropriate proceedings for the
realisation of the sums that may be due to the appellants. For such
purpose, the appellants will be entitled to rely on the report filed by the
income-tax authorities and other papers.
It will be open to the appellants to invoke Section 14 of the
Limitation Act, 1963 and apply before the appropriate forum for exclusion
of the time spent in this Court to pursue the writ petition and the present
appeal."
There is an issue of limitation involved. The suit is of 2020. The
acknowledgement is of June 15, 2016. The plaintiff seeks to take benefit of the
pendency of the writ petition as well as the order of the Appeal Court and Section
14 of the Limitation Act, 1963. Limitation is a mixed question of fact and law. It
would be inappropriate for the Court to pass a decree on admission without
returning a finding on the issue of limitation involved in the instant suit, finally.
In order to return a conclusive finding on the issue of limitation, it would be
appropriate to permit the parties to lead evidence.
The Court is informed that the defendants despite service of the writ of
summons did not file written statement till date.
Whether a period of 120 days elapsed from the date of service of the writ of
summons on the defendants need not be decided in the present application.
In such circumstances, since the Court is unable to return a conclusive
finding on the issue on limitation, it would be inappropriate to pass a decree on
admission as against the defendants.
IA No.GA/1/2020 in CS/35/2020 is disposed of accordingly.
(DEBANGSU BASAK, J.)
B.Pal
