Gouranga Das @ Gouranga Chandra Das And Others vs Jitendra Prasad Dubey And Others

Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J

The present revisional application has been filed by some of the defendants in a suit for permanent injunction filed jointly by the plaintiffs/opposite party nos. 1 and 2.

In connection with the said suit, a counter claim was filed by the present revisionist petitioners.

The plaintiffs/opposite parties jointly filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure for rejection of the said counter claim.

In view of the perceived delay in disposal of the same, a joint application was again filed by both the plaintiffs/opposite party nos. 1 and 2 seeking expeditiously disposal of the same. An order was passed in connection with the said application.

Subsequently, however, the plaintiff/opposite party no. 1 took out an application disowning his signature in the applications filed jointly by both the plaintiffs under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code as well as for expeditious hearing of the said application.

Consequentially, an application was filed under Section 379 of the BNSS alleging perjury on the part of the plaintiff/opposite party no. 2.

Learned counsel for the revisionist petitioners argues that by the impugned order, the plaintiff/opposite party no. 2 has been allowed to pursue the petition under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code "severally" (intended apparently to mean independently), although the application was filed jointly by both the plaintiffs/opposite party nos. 1 and 2.

Learned counsel for the revisionist petitioners argues that the learned trial Judge acted without jurisdiction in so permitting the plaintiff/opposite party no. 2 to independently pursue the application for rejection of the counter claim, since the application was apparently filed jointly by both the plaintiffs/opposite party nos. 1 and 2, which fact has also been denied by the opposite party no. 1.

Learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff/opposite party no. 2 contends that even independently, the opposite party no. 2, being one of the plaintiffs, is entitled to take out an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code.

As such, irrespective of the outcome of the application under Section 379 of the BNSS, there is no bar to the Court permitting the opposite party no. 2 solely to proceed with the Order VII Rule 11 application.

Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the opinion that there is substance in the contention of the opposite party no. 2 inasmuch as even independently, on his own footing as a plaintiff in the suit, opposite party no. 2 is entitled to take out an application for rejection of the counter claim.

Even if ultimately the Section 379, BNSS application is decided in the affirmative (without holding so at this stage), it would not be a bar to opposite party no. 2 independently proceeding with the application for rejection of counter claim.

In view of the technical objection raised by the revisionist petitioners, however, it would be more appropriate for the learned trial Judge, before permitting the opposite party no. 2 solely to proceed with the joint application for rejection of couter claim, to transpose the plaintiff/opposite party no. 1 in the category of opposite party in the said application, in view of the expressed intention of the express intention of opposite party no. 1 to disown the said application.

Accordingly, CO No. 33 of 2026 is disposed of by modifying the impugned order, bearing Order No. 27 dated November 21, 2025 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) at Jalpaiguri, in Title Suit No. 542 of 2022 (R), to the limited extent that the plaintiff/opposite party no. 1 shall be transposed to the category of the proforma opposite party no. 2 in the application initially filed by both the plaintiffs under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code in the trial Court.

The necessary consequential corrections to the cause title of the said application in consonance with the above direction shall be carried out by the concerned office of the trial Court at the earliest.

It is made clear that the rest of the impugned order, directing the application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code to be taken up for hearing at the behest of the opposite party no. 2 solely and independently, is not interfered with and the learned trial Judge, it is expected, shall dispose of the said application as expeditiously as possible, independent of the outcome of the other application under Section 379 of the BNSS preferred in connection with the same suit.

There will be no order as to costs.

Urgent certified website copies of this order, if applied for, be made available to the parties upon compliance with the requisite formalities.