Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 907 (CAL)

Bimala Devi Jalan v. Shree Rath Chemicals

2013-12-06

PRASENJIT MANDAL

body2013
JUDGMENT : Prasenjit Mandal, J. Heard learned Advocates of both the sides. 2. Pursuant to the order dated November 22, 2013, the revisional application and the C.A.N. application are taken up together for hearing. As per order dated November 22, 2013 the question is whether the two suits pending in different Courts could be heard together analogously. 3. There is a dispute between the landlords and a tenant. The tenant filed a suit being Title Suit No.34 of 2013 for declaration of his tenancy right and permanent injunction restraining the landlords from evicting him from the premises in suit without due process of law and the said suit is pending before the leaned Civil Judge (Junior Division), 5th Court, Howrah. 4. Subsequent to that suit, the landlords preferred a suit being Title Suit No.129 of 2013 against the tenant for eviction and recovery of possession of the defendant from the premises in suit before the leaned Civil Judge (Junior Division), 3rd Court, Howrah. 5. The two suits are, therefore, between the same parties over the selfsame premises in suit. By the impugned order, the learned Trial Judge allowed the application for stay of the subsequent suit till the disposal of the Title Suit No.34 of 2013 pending before the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), 5th Court, Howrah. Being aggrieved, the plaintiffs of the Title Suit No.129 of 2013 pending before the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), 3rd Court, Howrah have preferred this civil revision. 6. Upon hearing the learned Counsel for the parties and on going through the materials on record, I find that the nature and character of the two suits are not similar, but, contrary to each other. It is not in the position that if the earlier suit is disposed of on contests, the fate of the subsequent suit would automatically be decided. 7. During argument Mr. Purnasish Gupta, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioners has contended that one suit is ready for hearing and another suit is at the stage of filing a written statement and an application is pending in the said suit and so, the second suit being not ready, it will not be proper for giving a direction of analogous hearing of the two suits. 8. He has also submitted that the simultaneous hearing of the two suits by the same Court may be done instead of analogous hearing. 8. He has also submitted that the simultaneous hearing of the two suits by the same Court may be done instead of analogous hearing. With due respect to Mr. Gupta, I am of the view that this submission cannot be accepted. 9. So far as the question of readiness of the subsequent suit is concerned, the learned Trial Judge is directed to fix short dates of the suit and he is also directed to take appropriate steps so that the two suits may be heard analogously, if prayed for by the parties. It will not be any difficult to make ready of a suit for hearing if the parties cooperate in this regard. 10. Moreover, if the landlords have enough grounds to institute a suit for eviction of a tenant, they cannot be debarred from exercising the legal rights to institute appropriate proceedings for eviction of a tenant from the premises in suit. They cannot by debarred from exercising their legal rights at all. The observations of the learned Trial Judge that the subsequent suit should be stayed because it is a settled principle of law that to avoid multiplicity of the proceeding and controversy with regard to the findings of the suits instituted on the similar property between the selfsame parties, the suit instituted at a later date is to be stayed, in my view, cannot be sustained. The real test as recorded above is whether if the earlier suit is disposed of, the subsequent suit stands disposed of automatically. 11. There being different kind of reliefs in the two suits, though the parties of the two suits are the same and the suit premises is the same and one, yet, stay of the suit for recovery of possession cannot be granted for the reasons recorded above. 12. In that view of the matter, the learned Trial Judge has acted illegally and with material irregularity in passing the impugned order, which cannot be sustained at all. 13. The impugned order is, therefore, set aside. 14. Since the two suits are pending in two different Courts as indicated above, the parties are at liberty to take appropriate steps for trial of the two suits by the one and same Court. Similarly, the parties are at liberty to file appropriate application for analogous trial of the two suits to minimise the time for disposal of the two suits. 15. Similarly, the parties are at liberty to file appropriate application for analogous trial of the two suits to minimise the time for disposal of the two suits. 15. The application is allowed to the extent indicated above. 16. However, there will be no order as to costs. C.A.N. No.10300 of 2013 :- 17. The C.A.N. application is for vacating the interim order passed by this Bench on September 2, 2013. Since the revisional application is being disposed of, this application for vacation has become infructuous and the same is rejected accordingly. 18. Urgent xerox certified copy, if applied for, be given to the learned counsel for the petitioner upon compliance of necessary formalities. Application is allowed.