Calcutta High Court
Yogita Gaurisaria vs High Court At Calcutta And Ors on 8 March, 2021
Author: Arindam Sinha
Bench: Arindam Sinha, Suvra Ghosh
ORDER SHEET
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Civil Appellate Jurisdiction
ORIGINAL SIDE
APO/54/2020
WITH
WPO/395/2019
IA NO.GA/1/2021
YOGITA GAURISARIA
Versus
HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA AND ORS.
APO/57/2020
WITH
WPO/394/2019
IA NO.GA/1/2021
SMITA GAURISARIA
Versus
HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA AND ORS.
BEFORE:
The Hon'ble JUSTICE ARINDAM SINHA
And
The Hon'ble JUSTICE SUVRA GHOSH
Date : 8th March, 2021
Appearance:
Mr. Saktinath Mukerjee, Sr, Adv.
Mrs.Manju Agarwal, Adv.
Mr. Bajarang Manot, Adv.
for appellant
Mr. Subrata Santra, Adv.
For respondent no.8/writ petitioner
Mr.S.Banerjee, Adv.
for respondent no.7 Mr.Sukanta Chakrabarty, Adv.
for High Court Administration The Court : Mr. Mukerjee, learned senior advocate appears on behalf of appellant in the appeals listed as serial nos.2 and 3 in day's list. He submits, by similar orders both dated 3rd February, 2020, writ petitions filed, impleading his clients respectively therein, were allowed to be dismissed as not pressed with liberty to file fresh petitions with proper particulars. He submits, this could not have been done without first Court having recorded satisfaction on formal defect or sufficient grounds for allowing petitioner to institute fresh writ petitions. He relies 2 on judgment of Supreme Court in Shah Babulal Khimji Vs. Jayaben D. Kania reported in (1981) 4 SCC 8, paragraph 120 to submit, order allowing withdrawal of the suit with liberty to file a fresh one is a judgment within the meaning of Letters Patent. He next relies on judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in Subasini Devi Vs. Ashutosh Lahiri reported in 1924 Cal 751, wherein view was that power to grant liberty to file afresh has been conferred upon the Court to be exercised on certain conditions. He demonstrates from impugned order there is no record of fulfillment of conditions or satisfaction. Lastly he relies on Amulya Ratan Halder Vs. Amulya Chandra Bhaduri for view expressed by a learned single Judge of this Court, reported in 32 CWN 1244, on noticing that the munsiff did not state in his judgment, of there being formal defects in the plaint, an essential fact to be considered.
Respondent writ petitioner is represented by Mr. Santra, learned advocate. Said respondent is required to file affidavits by 12th March, 2021. Replies, if any, by 15th March, 2021. List the applications on 16th March, 2021.
Short directions have been given in pending consideration of Mr. Mukerjee's prayer for interim order of stay of operation impugned orders. This is because we would like to consider respondent/writ petitioner's position on his version of what happened when the writ petitions were called on to be moved.
Affidavits of service filed be taken on record.
(ARINDAM SINHA, J.) (SUVRA GHOSH, J.) sb.