Manna Roy & Ors vs Arati Das & Ors

Biswajit Basu, J

Re : CAN 12761 of 2019.

This is an application for recording the death of the opposite party no. 1 who died intestate during the pendency of the revisional application on December 07, 2019 as it appears from the Annexure to the said application.

The heirs and legal representatives of the said deceased opposite party no. 1 since are already on record, let the name of the opposite party no. 1 be expunged from the cause title of the revisional application.

The department is directed to carry out necessary amendment in the cause title of the revisional application.

CAN 12761 of 2019 is thus disposed of. No order as to costs.

Re : CO 1019 of 2019.

This revisional application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is at the instance of the plaintiffs in a suit for eviction and is directed against the order dated January 08, 2019 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), 2nd Court at Sealdah in Title Suit No. 646 of 1993.

The learned Trial Judge by an order dated February 24, 2016 allowed an application filed by the defendants/opposite parties seeking repair of the suit premises. The defendants/opposite parties complaining that the plaintiffs are obstructing execution of such repair work filed an application for Police help to execute the said work.

The learned Trial Judge by the order impugned has directed the I/C, Maniktala Police Station to render police assistance to the masons and labours engaged in such repair work and also to the advocate commissioner appointed for surveillance over the entire work.

Mr. Ghosh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, submits that the plaintiffs were although aggrieved by the order dated February 24, 2016 but by the said order since the plaintiffs were granted permission to execute the said repair work they did not challenge the same in the higher forum. He further contends that the suit has matured to the stage of peremptory hearing and at this stage if such an order is executed by Police help serious prejudiced would be caused to the plaintiffs.

Mr. Basu, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the defendants/opposite parties on the other hand submits that due to typographical mistake in the order dated February 24, 2016 the permission for repair of the suit premises was granted to the plaintiffs on the application of the defendants, the plaintiffs on the said technical plea cannot obstruct the implementation of the order dated February 24, 2016 when the suit premises requires urgent repair.

On perusal of the records it appears that the plaintiffs in the suit are seeking eviction of the opposite parties inter alia on the ground of reasonable requirement. The suit was filed in the year 1993 and after Twenty Six years it had reached the stage of peremptory hearing, the witness action in the suit is going on. At this stage the prayer of the defendants to execute the repair work of the suit premises by Police help cannot be allowed particularly when the order granting permission for such repair work is ambiguous.

This Court, therefore, feels that justice would be sub-served if the pending suit is disposed of expeditiously.

The order impugned for the reasons discussed above is set aside.

CO 1019 of 2019 is disposed of with a request to the learned Trial Judge to dispose of the connected suit expeditiously preferably within a period of four months from the date of communication of this order without granting any unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties.

No order as to costs.

Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties subject to compliance of all requisite formalities.