Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Arindam Mukherjee vs M/S. Senco Gold Limited on 16 February, 2017
Author: Ashis Kumar Chakraborty
Bench: Ashis Kumar Chakraborty
1 (11) 16.02.2017
(p.j.) IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CIVIL REVISIONAL JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE CO No. 169 of 2017 Arindam Mukherjee
-versus-
M/s. Senco Gold Limited Mr. Suddhasatva Banerjee Mr. Abhik Sengupta Ms. Atasi Sarkar ... for the petitioner Mr. Ashok Kumar Banerjee Mr. Deepnath Roy Chowdhury Ms. D. Dutta ... for the proforma opposite party Mr. Raja Basu Chowdhury Mr. Rabindra Nath Mahato ... for the opposite party This revisional application is directed against the order dated December 01, 2016 passed by the learned XIII Bench, City Civil Court at Calcutta in Title Suit No. 2215 of 2011. By the impugned order, the learned Court below allowed an application under Order I Rule 10(2) read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (in short "the Code") filed by the proforma opposite party for its impleadment in the suit filed by the petitioner against the opposite party no. 1. However, while allowing the said application the learned Court below deleted the petitioner, the plaintiff in the suit, from the array of the parties to the suit and impleaded the proforma opposite party, Anjali Jwellers as a plaintiff in the suit. Undisputedly, the proforma opposite party has 2 obtained transfer of a portion of the property in question from the petitioner during the pendency of the above suit on, as is where his basis.
It was submitted on behalf of the petitioner that in the facts of the present case when the transferee Anjali Juwellers could be impleaded as the proforma defendant in the suit, the learned Court below committed an error of law in deleting the original plaintiff from the suit and making transferee Anjali Jewellers, as the plaintiff in the suit.
Mr. Ashok Kumar Banerjee, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the defendant proforma opposite party, in his usual fairness did not raise any objection to the contention raised by the petitioner plaintiff in this revisional application. Even yesterday, when this application was taken up for hearing, the learned advocate representing the opposite party no 1-defendant-M/s. Senco Gold Limited submitted that the latter has no objection to the contention raised by the petitioner in this application.
Having considered the materials on record, it appears that when the petitioner's cause of action against the opposite party defendant still survives the learned Court below committed an error of law in converting the application by the proforma opposite party under Order I Rule 10(2) of the Code into an application under Order XXII Rule 10 of the Code.
For the reasons as aforesaid, the impugned order dated December 01, 2016 passed by the learned XIII Bench, City Civil Court at Calcutta in Title Suit No. 2215 of 2011 is set aside. The proforma opposite party-Anjali Jewellers in this revisional application is impleaded as a defendant in the suit.
With the above directions, CO 169 of 2017 stands disposed of. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
Let, the supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioner be kept on record. 3 Certified website copies of the order, if applied for, be urgently made available to the parties, subject to compliance with all requisite formalities.
(Ashis Kumar Chakraborty, J.)