Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Haritaran Das & Anr vs Dulal Chandra Saha on 17 May, 2012
Author: Soumen Sen
Bench: Soumen Sen
1 29 17.5.12
C.O. 1640 of 2012 jb.
Haritaran Das & Anr.
vs. Dulal Chandra Saha Mr. Somnath Majumder, Mr. Shiva Prasad Ghosh .... For the Petitioners The suit for eviction filed by the plaintiffs- petitioners in 2000 is yet to be disposed of by the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, 3rd Court at Sealdah. The petitioner submits by referring to the order sheets that in spite of due diligence, the said matter could not be disposed of. However, from the record, it appears that the plaintiffs filed an application under Order 39 Rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure which was allowed along with an application for amendment on 9th September, 2010. The amended plaint was filed on 21st December, 2010. The plaintiffs filed another application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure on 13th March, 2011 for amendment of the plaint. On 25th August, 2011, the Commissioner filed its report with field note. The plaintiffs filed an adjournment petition in connection with the 2 amendment application on 5th September, 2011 and such prayer was allowed by the learned civil Judge, fixing the said petition for amendment on 9th November, 2011. The said amendment was allowed by the order dated 9th January, 2012 and the learned Judge fixed 23rd February, 2012 for filing amended plaint. The amended plaint was filed on 13th January, 2012. The learned Court records that the amended plaint has not been served upon the opposite party.
In view thereof, it cannot be said that there is any delay in disposing of the pending application. The petitioner submits that once an order for amendment is allowed, there is no requirement for fixing 21st May, 2012 for hearing of the amended plaint.
I think that the said date was fixed for the purpose of ascertaining whether the amended plaint corresponds to the schedule of amendment.
Be that as it may, it cannot be said that the Court 3 was not diligent in proceeding with the said suit.
It is needless to mention that the said Court would proceed with the hearing of the suit and decide the pending application in accordance with law and on merits.
In view thereof, no further order need be passed. The application is thus disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.
Photostat certified copy of the order, if applied for, be given to the parties on usual undertaking.
( Soumen Sen, J. )