Ashis Chakraborty vs Pratima Ghosh

Bibek Chaudhuri, J

This is an application under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereafter the CPC) for transfer of Ejectment Suit No.35 of 2012 from the court of the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), 3rd Court at Sealdah, North 24 Parganas.

It is stated by the petitioners that they as plaintiffs have filed a suit for eviction against one Smt Pratima Ghosh under the provisions of West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997. The said suit was filed on 18th May, 2012. Notice of the said ejectment suit was sent in the name of the opposite party fixing 6th July, 2012 for service return and appearance. The defendant/opposite party entered appearance in the said suit on 4th August, 2012 and filed applications under section 7(1) and 7(2) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 (hereafter as the said Act). Subsequently, however, the defendant/opposite party remained absent and failed to take any step in the trial court. Accordingly the suit was fixed for exparte hearing on 19th September, 2013 and then on 18th February, 2014. In the mean time, one of the plaintiffs namely, Aloke Chakraborty died and the petition was filed on behalf of the petitioners for substitution of legal heirs and representatives of the said Aloke Chakraborty. Trial court took about one year and four months to dispose of the said application under Order 22 rule 3 of the CPC which was finally allowed on 8th April 2015. On 19th August, 2015 the petitioners submitted evidence on affidavit on behalf of the petitioners. On that date the opposite party also filed an application praying for vacating the order of exparte hearing of the suit. The prayer made by the opposite party was allowed by order dated 19th August, 2015 subject to payment of cost of Rs.1000/-.

It is alleged by the petitioners that the learned trial judge vacated exparte hearing of the suit after long lapse statutory period violating the provisions contained in order 8 rule 1 of the CPC. Subsequently, on series of dates fixed for hearing of the suit, no effective hearing was done by the learned trial judge on one pretext or the other. It is alleged by the petitioner that the conduct of the trial court is not at all satisfactory and highly biased the trial court is showing undue favour to the opposite party/defendant and her advocate. Under such circumstances, the petitioner has prayed for transfer of Ejectment Suit No.35 of 2012 from the 3rd Court of learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) at Sealdah to any court of the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) at Alipore in the District of South 24 Parganas or to the learned Chief Judge, Small Causes Court, Calcutta for trial and early disposal of the matter.

Mr. Asok Kumar Bhattacharyya, learned Advocate for the petitioner submits that the defendant has been adopting of all sorts of dilatory tactics so that the eviction suit filed by the petitioners may not be heard and disposed of at an early date. The plaintiffs have lost of faith on the learned Presiding Judge in the 3rd Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), presently at Mayukh Bhaban, Salt Lake. It is further submitted by Mr. Bhattacharyya that a judge should perform in such a manner so as to develop confidence upon the parties to a suit that the case will be dispose of impartially and without unnecessary delay. About 7 years have elapsed since the filing of the suit to accept written statement filed by the defendant/opposite party without considering the specific provision of Order 8 rule 1 of the CPC. Under such circumstances, Ejectment Suit No.35 of 2012 may be transferred to some other court having competent jurisdiction to try such suit.

The opposite party remains unrepresented in spite of service of notice of the instant application under Section 24 of the CPC.

In the instant application, the petitioners have stated that they have lost faith and confidence on the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), 3rd Court at Sealdah (presently at Mayukh Bhavan, Salt Lake). If it takes almost six years to accept written statement filed by the opposite party in a suit for eviction on the ground of reasonable requirement, there is every reason that the plaintiff will loose faith on justice delivery system. Petitioners allegation of bias against the Presiding Officer of the concerned Court cannot be thrown away because of the fact that the learned judge practically conducted the proceeding of the suit in a lacklustre manner.

In view of the above discussion, I am inclined to allow the instant application under Section 24 of the CPC filed by the petitioner.

Accordingly, the petitioner under Section 24 of the CPC is allowed, however, without cost. Ejectment Suit No.35 of 2012 pending before the 3rd Court of learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Sealdah (now at Mayukh Bhavan, Salt Lake) be transferred to the court of Chief Judge, Small Causes Court, Calcutta for trial and disposal.

Office is directed sent a copy of this order to the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), 3rd Court at Sealdah (now at Mayukh Bhavan, Salt Lake) and the learned Chief Judge, Presidency Small Causes Court, Calcutta for information and compliance.

Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties as expeditiously as possible.