Sri Bighan Shaw vs Soumyadip Majumder
2022 Latest Caselaw 5146 Cal

31 08.08.

AGM   2022
  /
RKB                               C.O. 1725 of 2022
 Ct

                                   Sri Bighan Shaw
                                          Vs
                                 Soumyadip Majumder


               Mr. Avik Datta,
               Mr. Uttam Banerjee,
               Mr. Arunesh Pathak             ... For the petitioner.

               Mr. Dyutiman Banerjee,
                                     ... For the opposite party.

Liberty is given to correct the cause title and the

prayer portion of the instant revisional application.

Petitioner assails order dated 18th May, 2022

dismissing the revisional application being CR Case

No. 29 of 2019, by learned District Judge, South 24

Parganas, Alipore.

Admittedly, order dated 4th September, 2019

passed by the Trial Court in T.S. No. 2157 of 2010

declining to accept the written statement, for non

delivery of service of copy of the written statement to

the plaintiff was challenged in revision before the

learned District Judge, South 24 Parganas, Alipore in

CR Case No. 29 of 2019.

Learned advocate appearing for the petitioner

submits that the Trial Court giving a hyper-technical

approach has declined to accept the written

statement, merely for non-service of copy of the

written statement to the plaintiff.

Per contra learned advocate appearing for

opposite party petitioner supporting the order of the

Court below passed in revision, submits that the

impugned order not being revisable, learned District

Judge, while exercising revisional authority as per

provisions available under Section 115A C.P.C has

rightly rejected the revision.

Upon perusal of the order dated 4th September,

2019 passed in Title Suit No. 2157 of 2017 of Civil

Judge (Junior Division) 2nd Court, Alipore, it appears

that written statement was filed on 14th November,

2010. Significantly, the petitioner/defendant did not

comply with the direction of the Trial Court to supply

copy of the written statement upon the opposite

party/plaintiff on as many as two occasions.

When written statement has been submitted, it

is however, conspicuous to reveal that

petitioner/defendant has demonstrated his intention

at least to contest the pending suit, upon setting up

his defence, as disclosed in the written statement.

The copy of the written statement, ought to

have been served upon the opposite party/plaintiff,

while filing the written statement before the Court

below. That exercise has not been done. But, at the

same time, when the intention of the defendant is

discernable from very filing of written statement to

contest the suit, the technicality, as adhered by the

Trial Court, should not be given precedence.

The revisional application is disposed of

directing the Court below to consider the written

statement, as regards its acceptance giving a hearing

for the purpose, without resorting to hyper-technical

approach, as discussed in the body of this judgment.

Petitioner is directed to make communication

of this order to the learned court below.

With this observation and direction, the

revisional application stands disposed of.

Urgent photostat certified copy of the order, if

applied for, be given to the parties on usual

undertakings.

(Subhasis Dasgupta, J)