Calcutta High Court
Woodland Manufacturer Ltd vs Sakti Prasad Garga & Ors on 12 September, 2025
Author: Sugato Majumdar
Bench: Sugato Majumdar
OD - 14 & 15
ORDER SHEET
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
ORIGINAL SIDE
IA NO. GA/15/2021
In CS/324/1987
WOODLAND MANUFACTURER LTD.
Vs
SAKTI PRASAD GARGA & ORS.
IA NO. GA/17/2024
In CS/324/1987
WOODLAND MANUFACTURER LTD.
Vs
SAKTI PRASAD GARGA & ORS.
BEFORE:
THE HON'BLE JUSTICE SUGATO MAJUMDAR
Date: 12th September, 2025
Appearance:
Mr. Saunak Sengupta, Adv.
Mr. Avijit Dey, Adv.
...for the applicant Jawed Aktar
Mr. Rudradeb Chowdhury, Adv.
....for the Plaintiff.
Mr. J. K. Sanwarwala, Adv.
Mr. Sarosij Dasgupta, Adv.
Mr. Shariq A. Sanwarwala, Adv.
Ms. Sadaf Arfin, Adv.
...for the defendant no.1
The Court: GA 17 of 2024 is filed by one Mr. Jawed Aktar, in the context of
pendency of GA 15 of 2021.
GA 15 of 2021 is pending before this Court containing various prayers. It is
contended in the instant application that certain prayers were made in GA 15 of 2021
which, if allowed, would affect the right, title and interest of the present Petitioner. It
is averred in the instant application that only cause of action disclosed in GA 15 of
2021 is that the Defendant including those claiming under him, were restrained by a
judgment dated 12th September, 2014 for a period of 25 years from disposing of
and/or alienating and/or encumbering the property to any third party and hence no
right could have been created towards any party which would have been an alleged
violation of the said purported restriction imposed in the said judgment dated 12th
September, 2014. The said judgment and order dated 12th September, 2014 was
challenged before the Hon'ble Division Bench and the Division Bench in terms of
judgment dated 14th February, 2020 modified the judgment dated 12th September,
2014. It is further averred that, it is evident from bare perusal of the judgment dated
12th September, 2014 and 14th February, 2020 that there was no restriction on the
Defendant to transfer his share of the said premises to the Petitioner herein since the
Defendant had failed to pay the directed sum of money by a specific date, namely,
20th March, 2020. The right of pre-emption did not survive on failure of the
Defendant to pay the directed sum by 20th March, 2020 as a result of which the
restriction imposed by a period of 25 years ceased to survive. It is further averred
that the present Petitioner was inducted as a tenant in terms of agreement of tenancy
on payment of valuable consideration. Such tenancy is a monthly tenancy. In the
context of facts stated, it is pleaded that there is no violation of the order of this
Court and GA 15 of 2021 is liable to be dismissed.
The principal limb of argument of the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner was
that the judgment of the Division Bench dated 14th February, 2020 was modified the
judgment of the Single Bench dated 12th September, 2014 whereby and whereunder
there was merger of the judgment of the Single Bench with the judgment of the
Division Bench. Furthermore, as a result of the merger, the order and judgment of
the Single Bench stood extinguished and the judgment and the order of the Division
Bench remained in sway. On this basis, it was contended that once a proceeding
such as a suit was finally disposed of, the application being GA 15 of 2021 cannot be
maintained for any purpose except as stated in the order passed by the Division
Bench. It was farther argued that the Plaintiff cannot expand the scope of the suits
which were disposed of, by seeking eviction of the applicant being of bona fide
tenant. It was further contended that even though it be accepted without admitting
the same, for argument's sake, that the present Petitioner is a trespasser, still then
the later cannot be evicted except by due process of law; not by drawing up an
interlocutory proceeding. According to the Learned Counsel for the
Plaintiff/Petitioner, GA 15 of 2021 should be dismissed.
The argument for the Learned Counsel for the Plaintiff principally is that the
applicant is a stranger; he made no attempt to show that he is either a necessary or a
proper party; he neither made an application to be added as a party nor for leave to
be examined pro interesse suo. Having bereft of any locus standi the instant
application should be dismissed. The Learned Counsel for the Plaintiff thereafter
elaborated his argument in respect of the fact of the case with reference to the
decisions passed by the different Benches of this Court.
On hearing rival submissions, the first question that becomes pertinent is
maintainability of the instant application. The Petitioner is not a party to the suit.
He derived his title, as appears from the pleadings, from the Defendant of the suit.
The Defendant is absent to set up any defence till now in GA 15 of 2021. The instant
application is an attempt to fill up the absence of the Defendant and to raise a proxy
defence in GA 15 of 2021.
GA 15 of 2021 should be heard on merit considering all necessary and
incidental issues and points, keeping in mind, the order and judgments passed by the
Single Bench as well as the Division Bench. Those questions and those issues will
remain open. What is pending between the parties to the suit and what is to be heard
and decided between the parties to the suit cannot be listened and heard form an
outsider. The present Petitioner has made no application to be added as a party and
to set up a defence in the suit as well as pending application. For reasons as
aforesaid, this Court is of the view that merit of GA 15 of 2021 cannot be decided by a
separate application filed by a stranger to the suit.
Accordingly, the instant application stands dismissed.
Fix 14/11/2025 for hearing GA 15 of 2021.
(SUGATO MAJUMDAR, J.)
