Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 1016 (CAL)

Priya Ranjan Chowdhury v. Sipra Basak

2010-08-18

PRASENJIT MANDAL

body2010
JUDGMENT Prasenjit Mandal, J. 1. THIS application is at the instance of the defendant and is directed against the order no.14 dated 06.07.2010 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Eleventh Court, Alipore, District South 24 Parganas on the two petitions filed by the defendant/petitioner. 2. THE short fact is that the plaintiffs/opposite parties filed the Ejectment Suit No.305 of 2006 for eviction of the defendant/petitioner from the suit property as described in the schedule of the plaint on the ground of reasonable requirement and default. In that suit, the defendant/petitioner appeared and filed an application under Section 7(2) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 and that application was disposed of. The defendant/petitioner has complied with the order on his petition and he is paying rent in respect of the suit property. The suit was at the stage of peremptory hearing. The evidence of the P.W.1 was taken in part and his cross-examination was deferred on the prayer of the defendant/tenant. In this way, more than three months passed and several dates were fixed for hearing, but the learned Trial Court failed to get the P.W.1 cross-examined by the defendant/tenant. Ultimately on 16.04.2009, the learned Trial Judge closed the cross-examination of the P.W.1 when the learned lawyer for the defendant declined to cross-examine him. Thereafter, the P.W.2 was examined on 30.04.2009. But on that day too, the learned lawyer for the defendant refused to cross-examine the P.W.2 and on 08.05.2009 the suit was fixed for further examination for defence witness. On that day, the defendant/tenant did not cooperate with the Court and ultimately, the learned Trial Court fixed the next date on 18.05.2009 for further hearing of the argument. Ultimately, the Court passed the judgment on 10.09.2009. The defendant preferred an appeal against the said judgment and at that appellate stage, the defendant filed two petitions one for sending the suit back on remand to the court below for cross-examination of the P.W.1 and giving evidence of the defendant and another petition for granting the reasonable time for bringing stay order from the Hon'ble Court. The learned appellate court dismissed both the petitions by the impugned order. Being aggrieved, this application has been filed. 3. The learned appellate court dismissed both the petitions by the impugned order. Being aggrieved, this application has been filed. 3. AFTER hearing the submission of the learned Advocate of both the sides and on going through the order impugned, I find that this application is an instance how the defendant has adopted dilatory tactics in order to frustrate the prayer for decree for recovery of possession of the suit property on the ground of reasonable requirement and default. The cross-examination of the P.W.1 was fixed on 19.01.2009 and on that day, he was crossexamined in part and his further examination was deferred to the subsequent date on the prayer of the defendant/tenant. Since then, whenever the dates were fixed, the learned Advocate for the defendant declined to cross-examine the P.W.1 or other subsequent witness, such as, P.W.2. Even when the date was fixed for the examination of the defence witness, the learned Advocate for the defendant did not cooperate. So, I am of the view that the learned appellate court has rightly observed that the intention of the defendant is nothing but to drag the matter for unending period so that the plaintiff might not get any relief, as prayed for in the suit and that is why he had adopted non-cooperation so that the matter could be placed before the higher forum for unending period. The learned appellate court has rightly observed that the defendant/tenant had shown defiant attitude deliberately so that the suit might not reach the final stage. I find that the learned Trial Judge had given all the opportunities to the defendant/tenant but he did not avail of the same in order to delay the disposal of the suit. This was also tested before the learned appellate court. Therefore, in exercise of revisional jurisdiction, I find that there is no perversity or illegality in the order impugned. If I allow the application, it will be nothing but an injustice to the plaintiffs/landlords. Therefore, I hold that this application is without any merit. Accordingly, this application is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.