Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Sri Kanakkanti @ Kanak Karmakar vs Sri Bholanath Roy on 22 June, 2016
1
In The High Court At Calcutta
22-06-2016 Civil Revisional Jurisdiction
sh-7
.
C.O.2260 of 2016 Sri Kanakkanti @ Kanak Karmakar
-vs-
Sri Bholanath Roy Mr. Debjit Mukherjee Ms. Susmita Chatterjee ...for the petitioner.
Mr. Partha Sarathi Bhattacharyya Mr. Srikrishna Samanta Mr. Raju Bhattacharyya ... for the opposite party.
This application under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is at the instance of the defendant no. 6 in the eviction suit, being Title Suit No. 93 of 2014 pending before the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), 2nd Court, Arambagh. The petitioner has prayed for transfer of the eviction suit from the Court of the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), 2nd Court, Arambagh.
The ground urged by the petitioner in this application is that since the plaintiff in the eviction suit is a senior advocate practising at Arambagh Court, the advocates practising in the Arambagh Court have refused to represent him in the suit and he is unable to contest 2 the said eviction suit before the learned Civil Judge(Junior Division), 2nd Court, Arambagh. Thus, he filed an application before the learned Court below praying for, inter alia, adjournment of hearing of the suit fixed on May 19,2016. However, by an order dated May 19,2016 the learned Civil Judge(Junior Division), 2nd Court, Arambagh rejected the prayer of the petitioner for adjournment of hearing of the suit. Undisputedly, the opposite party no. 1, being the plaintiff in the said eviction suit is a senior advocate practising in the district Court at Arambagh and the petitioner is not getting any advocate from the Arambagh Court to represent him in the said eviction suit. Even from the order dated May 19,2016 passed by the learned Court below it appears that the case made out by the petitioner that he is not getting any advocate from the Arambagh Bar to represent him in the said eviction suit against the opposite party no. 1-plaintiff.
Mr. Bhattacharyya appearing for the plaintiff opposite party no. 1 submitted that an application filed by the defendant nos. 1 to 5 of the eviction suit under Section 24 of the Code praying for, similar relief before the learned District Judge, rejected on February 18,2016. He further submitted that in a revisional application being CO No. 788 of 2016, by an order dated June 07,2016 a learned Single Judge of this Court has refused to interfere with the said order dated February 18,2016.
However, Mr. Mukherjee appearing for the petitioner submitted that neither the said application under Section 24 of the Code was filed by the petitioner, 3 nor did the petitioner file the said revisional application before this Court. Thus, according to him the petitioner can maintain the present application. Considering the facts of the case, I find the contention of Mr. Mukherjee to be well founded.
Considering the averments made in this application, I am satisfied that the petitioner has made out a prima facie case for interim protection. Accordingly, there shall be an interim order directing stay of all further proceedings in Title Suit No.93 of 2014 pending before the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), 2nd Court at Arambagh till July 30,2016.
As prayed for by Mr. Mukherjee leave is granted to the petitioner to file a supplementary affifdavit within June 30, 2016 upon service on the opposite party nos. 1 to 4.
As prayed for by Mr. Bhattacharyya let the plaintiffs-opposite party nos. 1 to 4 file their affidavit-in- opposition to this application and the supplementary affidavit, if any, within July 12,2016; reply, if any thereto, be filed within July 22,2016.
Let, this application appear under the heading "Contested Application under Section 24 CPC" on July 27,2016.
Certified website copies of the order, if applied for, be urgently made available to the parties, subject to compliance with all requisite formalities.
4(Ashis Kumar Chakraborty, J)