[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Calcutta High Court
Krishna Kumar Bhatter vs Sudha Kankaria on 25 March, 2026
Author: Sugato Majumdar
Bench: Sugato Majumdar
OD -20, 21, 26 & 29
ORDER SHEET
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
ORIGINAL SIDE
IA NO. GA/4/2025
In CS/150/2020
KRISHNA KUMAR BHATTER
Vs
SUDHA KANKARIA
IA NO. GA/5/2025
In CS/150/2020
KRISHNA KUMAR BHATTER
Vs
SUDHA KANKARIA
IA NO. GA/3/2025
In CS/150/2020
KRISHNA KUMAR BHATTER
Vs
SUDHA KANKARIA
IA NO. GA/1/2021
In CS/150/2020
KRISHNA KUMAR BHATTER
Vs
SUDHA KANKARIA
BEFORE:
THE HON'BLE JUSTICE SUGATO MAJUMDAR
Date: 25th March, 2026
Appearance:
Mr. Chayan Gupta, Adv.
Mr. Samriddha Sen, Adv.
Mr. Kaushik De, Adv.
Mr. Raghav Munshi, Adv.
Ms. Mohini Majumdar, Adv.
Ms. Ayelita Ghosh, Adv.
...for the Plaintiff
Mr. Subroto Goswami, Adv.
Mr. Debrup Bhattacharya, Adv.
Mr. Siddharth Singh, Adv.
...for the Defendant
The Court: GA 4 of 2025 is filed by the Defendant, praying for stay of the
instant suit. It is contended that prior to institution of this suit, Title Suit No. 1104 of
2019 had been filed by the Defendant in the City Civil Court at Calcutta against the
present Plaintiff. The subject matter of the both the suits are the same, namely,
money lent by the present Plaintiff to the Defendant or in other words the debt
existing between the present parties.
The Learned Counsel for the Defendant contended that subject matter of both
the suits and issues are same and also between the same parties which warrants stay
of the present suit instituted later in point of time.
Affidavit-in-opposition as well as supplementary affidavit-in-opposition was
filed.
It was contended by the Plaintiff that subject matter of the suits are not
exactly in the same and the prior suit, namely, Title Suit No. 1104 of 2019 was
dismissed for default on 14th November, 2025. However, an application for
restoration is still pending. According to the Learned Counsel for the Plaintiff, the
prior suit is not pending.
I have heard rival submissions.
From the copy of the plaint annexed to the application, it is evident that the
previous suit, namely, Title Suit No. 1104 of 2019, instituted in a 9th Bench of City
Civil Court at Calcutta, is for declaration that the communication dated 25th
February, 2019 and some other letters issued on behalf of the Defendant are bad in
law with consequential prayer of deliver up and cancellation of such documents.
Basically, these letters are demand notice under which the present Plaintiff claimed
repayment of the money lent. The present suit is for recovery of money lent.
Previous suit was only confined to the demand notice whereas the instant suit is filed
for recovery of money having a larger ambit and different issues. Only a small part of
the present dispute is in issue in Title Suit No. 1104 of 2019. Therefore, issues in
both the suits are not same though both the parties may be same. Secondly, as of
now, the earlier suit has been disposed of; not a pending one. Therefore, it is not fit
case where provisions of Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 shall be
squarely applicable.
Accordingly, the instant application being GA 4 of 2025 stands dismissed.
Fix 20th May, 2026 for hearing other applications.
(SUGATO MAJUMDAR, J.)
A.Das
(P.A)
