Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Akd Smt. Arati Ghosh vs Barun Kumar Ghosh & Anr on 3 October, 2016
Author: Harish Tandon
Bench: Harish Tandon
1
56 03.10.16 C.O. 3176 of 2016
Ct No. 2
akd Smt. Arati Ghosh
Vs.
Barun Kumar Ghosh & Anr.
--------
Mr. Asit Kumar Bhattacharya (3).
... for the petitioner.
By two different deeds a portion of a plot of land was sold to the common opposite party by the erstwhile owner. The application for preemption under Section 8 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 was filed by the opposite parties as co-sharer of a plot of land as well as adjoining land holder.
Since the preemption is sought in respect of the same plot of land and on the common ground against the common party, an application was taken out for analogous hearing of both the preemption applications filed by the opposite parties.
The Trial Court rejected the said application, as the aforesaid two preemption cases would suffer irregularity, if they are allowed to be tried analogously.
I am in fix what the Trial Judge meant by the aforesaid expressions.
The revisional application under Section 115A of the Code of Civil Procedure was dismissed as non- maintainable. It cannot be said to be wrong. The Code of Civil Procedure does not contain any provision relating to analogous hearing of the suits; where the Court found that it would be just and convenient that the two suits are 2 to be tried together, the inherent power enshrined under Section 151 of the Code can be invoked. The analogous hearing of two or more matters together would not only avoid the wastage of time in recording the same evidence in different proceedings, but also to avoid the repetition of facts and the decision.
In the instant case a portion of the same plot of land is sold by two different deeds to the petitioner and the opposite parties as preemptors filed two different proceedings as co-sharer of a raiyat and an adjoining landholder. There shall be a common ground in both the preemption applications and the adjudication also appears to be the same.
This Court feels that it is the fit case where the Court should permit both the preemption proceedings to be tried together.
The order impugned is, therefore, set aside. The Trial Court is directed to take up both the preemption proceedings, being Misc. Case No. 30 of 2014 and Misc. Case No. 118 of 2014, analogously and shall dispose of the same as expeditiously as possible.
This revisional application is thus disposed of. There will be no order as to costs.
(HARISH TANDON, J.) 3