Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 191 (CAL)

Chitra Mondal v. Gopal Chandra Chakraborty

2016-02-22

SIDDHARTHA CHATTOPADHYAY

body2016
JUDGMENT : Siddhartha Chattopadhyay, J.: This revisional application is directed against the Order dated 19.02.2015 and 15.06.2015 passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), 3rd Additional Court at Alipore in Ejectment Suit No. 85 of 2006. 2. According to the petitioner learned Court below most illegally closed the evidence of defendant No. 3 petitioner on the basis of his hand written application under Section 151 CPC and ignored his typed written application. In such circumstances, he has filed this application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. He further contended that first order dated 19.02.2015 passed by the Court was hand written and there was no signature or official seal and stamp of the Presiding Officer but in the typed order he has put his signature. He further submitted that Court below suo motu penned through the first order dated 19.02.2015. He apprehends that he will not get justice from the Trial Court and that said Court is completely bias. 3. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party contended that the factual aspect as narrated by the petitioner is far from reality. The first order dated 19.02.2015 does not bear the signature of the Presiding Officer under the said order. So it cannot be treated as a judicial order. Usual practice before the Court below is such that the bench clerk mentions the applications filed by the parties and thereafter, the Presiding Officer puts an endorsement to it by putting his signature and seal at the bottom of the said order. In that case it will be treated as a judicial order. But in the instant case, on perusal of the first order dated 19.02.2015, I find that the said order does not bear the signature of the Presiding Officer on the contrary the Presiding Officer has penned through the said part written by the bench clerk and he has given his initial at the top as well as at the left hand corner of the bottom, which goes to show that he did not pass any judicial order. Next order dated 19.02.2015 speaks that the defendant/petitioner has filed an application under Section 151 CPC and contended that PW 3’s evidence should not be taken because it is only in order to fill up the lacuna of the plaintiffs evidence and he added that the evidence of PW 3 being redundant required to be closed. Next order dated 19.02.2015 speaks that the defendant/petitioner has filed an application under Section 151 CPC and contended that PW 3’s evidence should not be taken because it is only in order to fill up the lacuna of the plaintiffs evidence and he added that the evidence of PW 3 being redundant required to be closed. Learned Court below has allowed the said application holding, inter alia, that evidence of PW 3 be treated as closed. After passing the said order, which bears the signature of the Presiding Officer, another order was passed by the Presiding Officer in connection with two separate applications i.e. one is for not consideration of the evidence of PW 3 Soma Chakraborty and another application for not pressing hand written application dated 19.02.2015. The learned Court below rejected it, quite rightly because after passing of the typed order dated 19.02.2015 the defendant/petitioner has filed such application without serving copy upon the other side. Naturally the typed written order dated 19.02.2015, which was passed in presence of both sides, could not be altered without a copy being served upon the plaintiff. Thereafter, another application was filed by the defendant/petitioner before the learned District Judge under Section 24 wherein the petitioner/defendant No. 3 has made a prayer for withdrawal and transfer of Ejectment Suit No. 85 of 2006. The learned Additional Judge has considered all the aspects very meticulously and has come to a correct conclusion and rejected the contention of the petitioner/defendant. 4. Challenging the order of the learned Additional Judge, the present petitioner has moved before this Hon’ble Court and this time the Hon’ble Court also held that the present defendant No. 3, petitioner has no reasonable ground of apprehension that she will not get justice before the learned Court below, more so, when the remaining four other defendants in the ejectment suit have not raised any complaint with regard to the conduct of the presiding judge. 5. While disposing of the said revisional application bearing No. C.O.2148 of 2015, the Coordinate Bench requested the learned Additional Civil Judge, Junior Division, 3rd Additional Court, at Alipore to dispose of the Ejectment Suit No. 85 of 2006 as expeditiously as possible preferably within March 31, 2016 after granting an opportunity to the defendants to adduce their evidence, if any, and without granting any unnecessary adjournment on the prayer of either of the parties. Practically, in such circumstances, this application is redundant one and it is rejected. Once again I reiterate that all the orders passed by the learned Civil Judge, (Junior Division), 3rd Additional Court at Alipore are absolutely correct and no interference is required. Any adverse comment may have a demoralising effect upon a judicial officer’s mind. Rather it seems to me that the learned Court has rendered its judicial duties without any fear and favour to anybody. I appreciate his effort for early disposal of the case. Only thing that can be added by this Court is for direction upon the Court below to dispose of the case must be within 31st March, 2016, after giving an opportunity to adduce evidence to the defendants if any. No adjournment shall be given to the either of the parties. With these directions this revisional application stands disposed of. 6. Let a copy of this order be sent to the learned Court below for his information and taking necessary action in accordance with law. 7. Urgent certified photocopy of this Judgment and order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance with all requisite formalities.