Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Sri Rampada Jana vs Smt. Kamala Samanta & Anr on 7 July, 2022
Author: Biswajit Basu
Bench: Biswajit Basu
07.07.2022
(D/L-09)
Ct.-18
(Susanta)
C.O. 445 of 2022
Sri Rampada Jana
-Vs-
Smt. Kamala Samanta & Anr.
Mrs. Usha Maiti,
Mr. Sukanta Das,
Ms. Anita Khatri,
.... For the Petitioner.
Mr. Partha Pratim Roy,
Mr. Rwitendra Banerjee,
Mr. Devdutta Pathak,
Mr. Sandip Kundu,
.... For the Opposite Parties.
The revisional application under Article 227
of the Constitution of India is at the instance of the
preemptee in a proceeding under Sections 8 & 9
of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 and is
directed against Order no. 42 dated February 4,
2022 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior
Division), Ghatal, District- Paschim Medinipur in
the said proceeding being J. Misc. Case No. 20 of
2003.
The learned Trial Judge by the order
impugned has allowed an application filed by the
preemptors seeking amendment of the application
for preemption.
Mrs. Usha Maiti, learned advocate appearing
on behalf of the petitioner submits that the
proposed amendment is barred by limitation and
in support of her said contention cites the
following decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court:-
2
1.In the case of Gopal Sardar -Vs-
Karuna Sardar reported in (2004) 4 SCC 252.
2. In the case of Munilal -Vs- Oriental Fire & General Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. Reported in (1996) 1 SCC 90.
3. In the case of T.N. Alloy foundry Co.
Ltd. -Vs- T.N. Electricity Board & Ors. reported in (2004) 3 SCC 392.
Mr. Partha Pratim Roy, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the preemptors/opposite parties submits that since the maintainability of the preemption application has been challenged on the ground that it is hit by the doctrine of partial preemption, the preemptors by the proposed amendment have sought to explain that it is not so.
Having heard the learned advocate for the parties and on going through the records, it appears that the preemptors by the proposed amendment are seeking to incorporate the facts necessary to elucidate topography of the suit property to nullify the challenge of the preemptees as to the maintainability of the application for preemption on the ground that the same is bad for partial preemption.
The preemptors by the proposed amendment are neither withdrawing any admission nor they are adding any new prayer as such there is no question of the proposed amendment being barred 3 by limitation. The decisions cited by Mrs. Maity are misplaced in the facts and circumstances of the present case.
The order impugned, therefore, does not call for any interference.
It is clarified that it is open for the pre- emptees to take the defence of partial preemption notwithstanding such defence being taken by them in their written objection to the application for preemption in a cryptic manner.
The preemptees are entitled to file additional written objection to the amended application for preemption within a period of fourteen days from date or within fourteen days from the date of service of the copy of the amended application for preemption whichever is later.
C.O. 445 of 2022 is dismissed with the above terms without any order as to costs.
The learned Trial Judge is requested to expedite the disposal of the Misc. Case.
Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties subject to compliance with all requisite formalities.
(Biswajit Basu, J.)