Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Uttam Ganguly vs Danabendra Roy & Ors on 3 May, 2023
S/L 16
03.05.2023
Court. No. 12
Sourav
CO 3188 of 2018
Uttam Ganguly
Vs.
Danabendra Roy & ors.
Ms. Shila Sarkar
Mr. Sourav Sen
... for the petitioner.
1.
The petitioner is represented by his learned advocate
and he has handed over the affidavit-of-service,
which is taken on record.
2. None appears on behalf of the opposite parties in
spite of service.
3. Heard Mr. Sen, learned advocate for the petitioner at
length.
4. The instant revisional is now taken up for passing
appropriate order.
5. In this revisional application as filed under Article
227 of the Constitution of India, the order no. 28
dated 03.08.2018 as passed by learned Civil Judge
(Senior Division) 1st Court, Malda, in Title Suit No.
260 of 2013 has been assailed.
6. By the impugned order, learned Trial Court while
disposing an application under Section 10 of the Code
of Civil Procedure as filed by the defendant of Title
Suit No. 260 of 2013 directed that the said suit i.e.,
Title Suit No. 260 of 2013 shall remain stayed till
disposal of O.C. 102 of 2012 which is pending before
the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), 1st Court,
Malda.
7. The plaintiff of Title Suit No. 260 of 2013 felt
aggrieved and thus preferred the instant revisional
application.
8. Mr. Sen, learned advocate for the plaintiff/revisionist
in support of the instant revisional application at the
very outset draws attention of this Court to the
certified copy of the impugned order. Attention of
this Court is also drawn to the plaint of Title Suit No.
260 of 2013 as pending before the learned Civil Judge
(Senior Division), 1st Court, Malda and the plaint of
O.C. 102 of 2012 as pending before the learned Civil
Judge (Junior Division), 1st Court, Malda. It is
contended by Mr. Sen, learned advocate for the
plaintiff/petitioner that since in both the suits the
parties are identical and since in both the
aforementioned suits the subject matter of the suit
property are also identical, learned Trial Court
instead of passing an order of stay ought to have
passed a direction for disposal of the aforesaid two
suits one after another.
9. It is contended further on behalf of the writ petitioner
that this Court in exercise of its plenary power under
Article 227 of the Constitution of India, may direct
transfer of the case record of O.C. 102 of 2012 from
the Court of learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), 1st
Court, Malda to the Court of learned Civil Judge
(Senior Division), 1st Court, Malda and thereafter
may direct the later court to dispose of the aforesaid
two suits one after another considering the fact that
some of the issues involved in the aforesaid two suits
are identical.
10. On perusal of the entire materials as placed before
this Court and after hearing the learned advocate for
the plaintiff/petitioner, this Court most respectfully
disagrees with the submission of Mr. Sen, learned
advocate for the plaintiff/petitioner. On comparative
study of the plaint of O.C. 102 of 2012 and Title Suit
No. 260 of 2013, it reveals that the parties to the
aforesaid two suits are almost identical and the
matter in issue as involved in both the suits are
directly and substantially same.
11. In considered view of this Court, if both the
aforementioned two suits which are pending before
the two different courts are permitted to proceed
together, there may be a chance of conflicting
judgment which may lead of multiplicity of suits and
proceedings.
12. In further considered view of this Court that while
passing the impugned order, learned Trial Court
visualized the above position and thus correctly
proceeded in a right path while disposing the petition
under Section 10 of Code of Civil Procedure as filed
by the opposite party of the instant revisional
application.
13. In view of the discussion made hereinabove, this
Court thus finds no merit in the instant revisional
application and, accordingly, the instant revisional
application being CO 3188 of 2018 is hereby
dismissed. As a result, the impugned order no. 28
dated 03.08.2018 as passed by learned Civil Judge
(Senior Division) 1st Court, Malda, in Title Suit No.
260 of 2013 is hereby affirmed.
14. However, considering the fact that before the learned
Civil Judge (Junior Division), 1st Court, Malda, O.C.
102 of 2012 is pending for a considerable length of
time, learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), 1st Court,
Malda, is hereby directed to dispose of O.C. 102 of
2012 positively within a period of six months from
the date of communication of this order.
15. Department is hereby directed to communicate this
order to the Court of learned Civil Judge (Senior
Division), 1st Court, Malda as well as to the Court of
learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) 1st Court,
Malda, for their information and report.
16. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if
applied for, be given to the parties, upon compliance
of necessary formalities.
(Partha Sarathi Sen, J.)
