Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Sri Udayan Basu vs Dr. Parimal Banerji And Another on 27 November, 2018
1 S/L. 30.
November 27, 2018.
MNS.
C. O. No. 1892 of 2018 Sri Udayan Basu Vs. Dr. Parimal Banerji and another Mr. Kaushik Dey ...for the petitioner.
Mr. Rajdeep Bhattacharya ...for the opposite parties.
The present revision has been directed against an order, whereby the defendant/petitioner's prayer for local inspection was refused.
Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that, apart from the suit premises, the plaintiffs-landlords have other alternative accommodation.
By virtue of the application for local inspection, the petitioner sought to find out the extent and user of such alternative accommodation.
Learned counsel for the opposite parties opposes such application, on the ground that previously there was an order, whereby the opposite parties' application for local inspection in respect of the suit property was allowed. At that juncture, the petitioner had pleaded the availability of the same alternative accommodation in his written objection to such previous local inspection application.
The trial court, by the previous order dated July 7, 2015, had not only allowed the application of the opposite parties but had arrived at the observation that regarding the prayer of the defendant for inspection of certain other properties claiming them to belong 2 to the plaintiffs, the court was of the opinion that the burden of proving of the reasonable requirement was upon the plaintiffs and for discharging the said burden, the plaintiffs had sought for inspection of the property. It was further observed that, whether the plaintiffs had several other properties or not, or whether they provided for his suitable accommodation or not, would not be considered at that stage.
It is argued that in view of such specific refusal by the court at that juncture to permit such local inspection in respect of the alleged alternative accommodation, the same point could not be re-agitated now and the trial court rightly rejected such application of the petitioner.
Upon hearing both sides and considering the materials, it is evident that the present prayer of the petitioner was not rejected in terms by the previous order, since the said observations, indicated above, were only in dealing with the objection of the present petitioner and were not rendered in respect of a specific prayer of local inspection.
However, the view taken in such previous order by the trial court was absolutely logical and this Court is in agreement with such view.
It would be premature to direct local inspection in respect of certain other accommodation than the suit property without the defendant-petitioner having proved, at least prima facie, as to the plaintiffs being in possession of such other properties or having suitable alternative accommodation in such other premises.
Accordingly, C. O. No. 1892 of 2018 is disposed of without interfering with the impugned order, but making it clear that it will be open to the parties to seek further local inspection after evidence is adduced, on the same prayers as refused by the impugned order, and the trial court, if satisfied at that point of time that the defendant-petitioner has 3 made out a prima facie case in their evidence as to the plaintiffs having access to such alternative accommodation, would be at liberty to grant such local inspection in its discretion.
The trial court is further requested to dispose of the suit itself, as expeditiously as the business of the said court permits.
There will, however, be no order as to costs.
Urgent certified website copies of this order, if applied for, be made available to the parties upon compliance with the requisite formalities.
(Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J.)