Colgate Palmolive (India) Limited vs Coastal Roadways Limited on 25 April, 2011

[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

Calcutta High Court

Colgate Palmolive (India) Limited vs Coastal Roadways Limited on 25 April, 2011

Bench: Bhaskar Bhattacharya

                        GA No. 18 of 2011
                        APOT No.2 of 2011
                        CS No. 96 of 1992
                  IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
                   Civil Appellate Jurisdiction
                          ORIGINAL SIDE




   COLGATE PALMOLIVE (INDIA) LIMITED               Appellant

       Versus

   COASTAL ROADWAYS LIMITED                        Respondent

For Appellant : Mr. Jishnu Chowdhury, Advocate with Ms. Noelle Banerjee, Advocate For Respondent: Mr. Aniruddha Mitra, Advocate BEFORE:

The Hon'ble JUSTICE BHATTACHARYA The Hon'ble JUSTICE DR. SAMBUDDHA CHAKRABARTI Date : 25th April, 2011.

The Court : In this appeal the question arises whether after presentation of plaint the plaintiff lodged writ of summons within 14 days of presentation of plaint. From the report of the office of the Sheriff, Calcutta, which is annexed at page 21 of the application, we find that the copies of the plaint were lodged in the office of Sheriff on 28th February, 1992 at 2.20 p.m. The 2 returnable date of the writ of summons was fixed on 24th March, 1992. It is further stated that after completion of procedural part, in order to make the writ of summons ready it was found that returnable date had expired. So the writ of summons could not be served upon the defendant due to shortage of time provided in the rule. Ultimately, 17 years thereafter the matter appeared in the warning list when the plaintiff allegedly came to know that the original writ of summons lodged was not actually served.

Before this Court it is strenuously contended by Mr. Chowdhury, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the defendant, that the plaint having been presented on 4th February, 1992, the original lodging of summons on 22nd February, 1992 was beyond time and could not be accepted as there is no material to show that time was extended for lodging the writ of summons beyond 14 days. In view of the aforesaid conflicting claim, we call for a report from the Registrar, Original Side for disclosing before us in details from the official record the following facts :

1) What was the date of presentation of plaint ?

2) Whether it was presented before Court or before the Master ?

3) What was the date of completion of scrutiny in the Master's office ?

4) If the scrutiny is completed beyond 14 days from the presentation of plaint, whether extension is required to 3 be taken by the plaintiff for filing any application before the Master ?

5) What is the procedure if scrutiny is not completed within 14 days from the date of presentation of plaint ?

The Registrar, Original Side after giving the aforesaid answer will, on the basis of materials on record, indicate in his report whether there was any fault on the part of the plaintiff in lodging the writ of summons on 22nd February, 1992 and whether there is any material available on record to indicate that any extension of time was granted in favour of the plaintiff for lodging the writ of summons on 22nd February, 1992 by the Master or by the Court.

Let such report be given by the next Monday (2.5.2011). Let the matter appear on next Monday (2.5.2011). Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties subject to compliance with all requisite formalities.

(BHATTACHARYA, J.) (DR. SAMBUDDHA CHAKRABARTI, J.) SN.

Asst.Registrar(CR) 4

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Calcutta High Court