Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
CO/3148/2019 on 22 November, 2019
Author: Protik Prakash Banerjee
Bench: Protik Prakash Banerjee
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
CIVIL REVI SIONAL JURISDICTION
APPELLATE SIDE
Present:
The Hon'ble Justice Protik Prakash Banerjee, J.
C.O. No. 3148 of 2019 Supratik Ghosh
--V--
Bipradas Chatterjee For the Petitioner : Mr. Tapas Dutta, Adv., Mr. S. Mitra, Adv.
For the Opposite Party : Mr. Sagar Bandyopadhyay, Adv., Mr. Tapas Saha, Adv., Mr. Subhamay Dewanji, Adv., Mr. Diprav Deb, Adv.
Heard on : September 23, 2019, November 19, 2019.
Judgment Reserved on : November 19, 2019. Judgment on : November 22, 2019. PROTIK PRAKASH BANERJEE, J.:
1. This is a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. It challenges an order dated June 15, 2019 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), 8th Court at Alipore. By the said order, the learned Court below dismissed an application for condonation of delay and an application for review being Misc Case No.8 of 2016 of its judgment and decree dated April 26, 2012 in Money Suit No.1 of 2003, which had been filed 1380 days after the judgment was passed.
2. I do not have to go into the merits of this matter since the Misc Case and review petition from which this arises, has three opposite parties, being number (1) Adhesive & Chemicals, proprietor of Aliroma 2 Chemicals, (2) Aliroma Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. and (3) Bipradas Chatterjee, Managing Director of Alimroma Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. and Adhesive & Chemicals, but the petition being C.O. 3148 of 2019 has only a sole opposite party, being the opposite party no. 3 in the said Misc Case. The matter was moved as a listed motion September 23, 2019 when no prayer was made to cure this defect of non-joinder of necessary parties, being the parties to the proceedings where the petition has suffered an order of dismissal. After service in terms of the order dated September 23, 2019, when the matter came up before me also, no prayer was made to cure the defect but instead the petitioner chose to argue on merits.
3. I therefore hold that the petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties and dismiss the same. This shall not however, prevent the petitioner from moving afresh on the self-same cause of action, after removing the defect. No order as to costs.
(PROTIK PRAKASH BANERJEE, J.)