Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
1026/2013 on 21 March, 2014
Author: Asim Kumar Ray
Bench: Asim Kumar Ray
1 21.03.2014Sl. No. 117
aks C.O. 1026 of 2013 Mr. Soumak Bera .. for the petitioners.
Mr. Nilendu Bhattacharjee .. for the opposite parties.
This revisional application is directed against the order dated 18th January, 2013 passed in Title Suit No. 100 of 2006 by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ghatal whereby an application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure praying for stay of the suit filed by the petitioners/defendants was rejected.
The factual background leading to the presentation of this revisional application, in a nutshell, is that the opposite party nos. 1 to 3/plaintiffs filed Title Suit no. 100 of 2006 against the petitioners praying for eviction and recovery of khas possession. The petitioners/defendants on receipt of the summons entered appearance, filed written statement and contesting the suit. During pendency of the suit, the petitioners took out an application praying for stay of the suit stating that an application under West Bengal Acquisition of Homestead Land For Agricultural Labourers, Artisans And Fishermen Act, 1975 was filed by the petitioners/defendants before the B.L. & L.R.O., Chandrakona -I. The said application was disposed of by the B.L. & L.R.O. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the B.L. & L.R.O., Chandrakona-I, the petitioners have preferred an appeal being 24 of 2011 before the D.L. & L.R.O., Paschim Medinipur which is pending for disposal. Learned court below rejected the prayer for stay giving rise to this revisional appplication.
Mr. Bera, learned Advocate, appearing for the petitioners contended that Section 12 of the West Bengal Acquisition of Homestead Land For Agricultural Labourers, Artisans And Fishermen Act, 1975 puts a bar to the jurisdiction of the civil court to entertain a matter which falls within the ambit of the 2 said Act. The appeal filed by the petitioners before the D.L. & L.R.O., Paschim Medinipur is pending for disposal. If the appeal is allowed setting aside the order passed by the B.L. & L.R.O., Chandrakona -I, then the same will have the impact on the title suit in view of the provisions laid down under Section 12 of the aforesaid Act. But the learned court below without appreciating the said factum has passed the impugned order. It may be interfered with and set aside.
Mr. Bhattacharjee, learned Advocate, appearing for the opposite party nos. 1 to 3/plaintiffs has contended that the petitioners are not the Artisans. They are not the owners of the land alleged to have been acquired by the State. The petitioners submitted similar type of applications before the learned court below and learned court below passed the order rejecting the petitioners' prayer on earlier occasion which has been recorded in the body of the order. The petitioners run a cycle shop in the premises in question. The impugned may not be interfered with and set aside.
Perused the revisional application and the annexure thereto. I have taken specific notes of the submission of the learned Advocates of the parties. On perusal of the order impugned, it appears that the petitioners filed similar type of applications before the learned court below and the same were disposed of by order nos. 53 and 54. The said orders have not been challenged by the petitioners. The petition under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure is petitioners' third application taking the same ground praying for stay of the suit.
There is no document to show that the petitioners come within the purview of definition to Artisans. Artisan means a handicraftsman and includes potter, carpenter and blacksmith. It is disputed by the learned Advocate of the petitioners that the petitioners are running a cycle shop in the premises in question but the same is countered by his learned adversary by submitting that the written statement filed by the petitioners speaks that they run cycle shop in the premises in question.
3The written statement has been annexed with this application wherefrom it appears that the father of the petitioners used to run a Grocer shop in the premises in question and the petitioners are residing there along with others on the demise of their father vide paragraphs 8 and 13 of the written statement.
However, I do not like to enter into the matter because the observation, if any, made by this court may tell upon the merit of the matter which is pending before the D.L. & L.R.O., Paschim Medinipur. The fact remains that the petitioners are going on filing similar type of applications again and again and the same find place in the order impugned.
I do not find any odd in the order impugned.
The revisional application stands dismissed. Urgent xerox certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties expeditiously.
(Asim Kumar Ray, J.)