AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Prasenjit Mandal, J.—This application is at the instance of the defendant No. 5 and is directed against the order dated December 17, 2008
passed by the learned Judge, City Civil Court, 3rd Bench, Calcutta in Title Suit No. 2101 of 2000 thereby rejecting the prayer for calling the
lease-deed from the Office of the Registrar of Assurance, Kolkata. The plaintiff/opposite party herein instituted a suit being Title Suit No. 2101 of
2000 in the City Civil Court, Calcutta against the petitioner and other defendants praying for decree for recovery of possession and other reliefs.
The petitioner and other defendants are contesting the said suit and both the parties have adduced evidence. Thereafter, evidence on behalf of both
the parties was closed and the suit was fixed for hearing argument. At that stage the application for recall as stated above was filed by the
petitioner and that application was rejected by the impugned order. Being aggrieved, this application has been preferred.
Now, the question is whether the learned Trial Judge is justified in rejecting the said prayer.
Upon hearing the learned Advocates for the parties and on perusal of the materials-on-record, I find that the said suit was filed in the year 2002
for the reliefs already stated. The suit had to pass different hurdles and for that reason this Hon''ble Court directed the learned Trial Judge to
expedite the disposal of the said suit and to discourage unnecessary adjournments. Ultimately, the suit was at the stage of hearing of argument over
the suit. At that stage, the petitioner filed the application for calling for the original record of the lease-deed of 1969 from the Office of the Registrar
of Assurance, Kolkata contending, inter alia, that the lessee did not sign on the said deed of lease and as such for verification of the signature of the
lessee the original lease-deed was required.
On the basis of the materials-on-record, I find that the certified copy of the deed of lease in question was marked as ''Exhibit No. 1'' without
any objection meaning thereby the formal proof of the said lease-deed was dispensed with. It may be pointed out that the said lease was for a
period of 31 years and that expired long time back and so, the recovery of possession has been sought for under the circumstances. At the stage
of argument over the suit that the application was filed. Upon perusal of the copy of the deposition of the D.W.1, I find that the deed in question
has been marked ''Exhibit-1'' without any objection meaning thereby the formal proof of the said deed of lease has been dispensed with and
accordingly, the deed has been marked as ''Exhibit-1''. It may be pointed out herein that other documents were marked as ''Exhibit-2 & 3 Series''
with objection on the same day. This fact clearly signifies that the petitioner had no objection in marking the said deed of lease as ''Exhibit''. In
other words, the petitioner had no objection if the said copy of the deed of lease was taken into consideration for adjudication of the disputes
between the parties. Both the parties have adduced evidence thereafter accordingly and the suit is now at the stage of argument.
This being the position and I am of the view that the learned Trial Judge is perfectly justified in rejecting the said application for recall. There is
no infirmity, irregularity in the impugned order. The said order is not also without any jurisdiction. Therefore, there is no ground at all for
interference with the impugned order.
In that view of the matter, I am of the opinion that the application is devoid of merits and it should be dismissed accordingly.
Therefore, the application is dismissed.
Considering the circumstances, there will be no order as to costs.
The learned Trial Judge is directed to dispose of the said suit within 30 days, without fail, from the date of communication of the order.
C.A.N. No. 2778 of 2010
This C.A.N. application has been filed for calling upon the petitioner to show-cause as to why the interim order dated February 16, 2010
passed by the Single Judge shall not be vacated.
Since, the revisional application is disposed of by the above order. This C.A.N. application has become infructuous.
Accordingly, the C.A.N. application is dismissed. Urgent xerox certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the learned
Advocates for the parties on their usual undertaking.