Calcutta High Court
Ajay Kumar Rathod vs Ranbaxy Laboratiories Ltd on 18 July, 2014
Author: Debangsu Basak
Bench: Debangsu Basak
ORDER SHEET
G.A. No. 1165 of 2012
With
C.S. No. 151 of 2010
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
ORIGINAL SIDE
AJAY KUMAR RATHOD
Versus
RANBAXY LABORATIORIES LTD.
BEFORE:
The Hon'ble JUSTICE DEBANGSU BASAK
Date: 18th July, 2014.
Appearance:
Mr. Abrajit Mitra, Adv.
Mr. Jishnu Chowdhury, Adv.
Mr. M.M. Chandra, Adv.
... for the respondent/plaintiff
Mr. Sandip Kumar Bhattacharya, Adv.
... for the petitioner/defendant The Court: In a suit for eviction and mesne profit, an application under Chapter XIIIA of the Original Side Rules was filed by the plaintiff. The plaintiff obtained a decree for eviction. The defendant preferred an appeal. The appeal was dismissed.
A Special Referee was appointed for the purpose of computation of mesne profit. The Special Referee submitted his report. Being aggrieved by such report the plaintiff applied for taking exception thereto. Such application was allowed on July 7, 2014. The period of compensation was extended by the order dated July 7, 2014.
During the pendency of the application taking any exception to the report at the behest of the plaintiff, the defendant applied for taking exception of the 2 self-same report of the Special Referee. Such application was pending when the earlier application of the plaintiff being G.A. No. 2356 of 2012 was disposed of on July 7, 2014.
On behalf the defendant the learned Counsel, in support of the application taken exception to the report of the Special Referee, submitted that the Court lack pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the suit. Consequently such Special Referee could not have been appointed and, therefore, the report of the Special Referee was bad. The learned Counsel also submitted that, the plaintiff suppressed a material fact while obtaining the order dated July 7, 2014. The plaintiff suppressed the pendency of the present application taking exception to the report.
It was also contended on behalf of the plaintiff that since the order dated July 7, 2014 was not drawn up and completed in terms of Rule 27 of Chapter XVI of the Original Side Rules. So far as the provisions of Rule 27 of Chapter XVI was concerned, the Rule did not say that the order passed by the Court unless drawn up, completed and filed do not exist in the eye of law. The defendant could not prefer an appeal therefrom. Since the order dated July 7, 2014 was not drawn up and completed the said order was not exist in the eye of law. Therefore, the defendant was well within the right to re-agitate all points for the purpose of taking exception to the report of the Special Referee which was considered by the order dated July 7, 2014.
On the behalf of the plaintiff it was submitted that, the report of the Special Referee under challenged had received consideration of the Court on July 7, 2014 in G.A. No. 2356 of 2012. The defendant was not present at the 3 time of disposal of G.A. No. 2356 of 2012. The Court had passed a decree under Chapter XIIIA for eviction of the defendant. They had challenged such decree by an appeal. Such decree did not succeed. Since the Court had assumed jurisdiction while passing the decree and the appeal thereto had failed it could not be stayed with the Court lack jurisdiction pecuniary or otherwise.
I have considered the rival contentions of the parties and the material on records.
The suit was for eviction of the defendant and for mesne profits. The plaintiff had obtained a decree for eviction of the defendant under Chapter XIIIA of the Original Side Rules. A Special Referee was appointed for the purpose of computing the mesne profit receivable by the plaintiff with a direction to submit his the report. The report of the Special Referee so submitted received consideration of this Court in an application filed at the behest of the plaintiff requesting for enhancement of the period of the compensation awarded by the Special Referee. Such report was affirmed and the enhancement as prayed for by the plaintiff was allowed by the order dated July 7, 2014 passed in G.A. No. 2356 of 2012.
In my view, the validity of the report of the Special Referee stood concluded by the judgment and order dated July 7, 2014 passed in G.A. No. 2356 of 2012. The defendant was a party to the suit. The defendant, therefore, was bound by such judgment and order. The defendant cannot be permitted to re-agitate the report of the Special Referee by way of new challenge being thrown at it.
4
It was submitted that, the defendant had filed the present application during pendency of G.A. No. 2356 of 2012 and that such fact was suppressed from the Court. It was also submitted that, the plaintiffs did not bring the fact of pendency of the present application to the notice of the Court during the hearing of G.A. No. 2356 of 2012.
The pendency of the present application did not take away the jurisdiction of the Court to consider G.A. No. 2356 of 2012. The said application being G.A. No. 2356 of 2012 was considered on merits and judgment was pronounced. The defendant could have raised the point of jurisdiction at the time of hearing of the Chapter XIIIA but did not do so. The defendant was bound by such judgment.
The defendant did not raise such point at the time of hearing of the appeal from the judgment and decree passed under Chapter XIIIA. The defendant cannot also be allowed to raise the point lack pecuniary jurisdiction of this Court to entertain the suit at this stage. The Court has already assumed jurisdiction and has passed a decree under Chapter XIIIA of the Original Side Rules. Such decree was affirmed on appeal.
In such circumstances, the application being G.A. No. 1165 of 2014 fails and is thereby dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.
(DEBANGSU BASAK, J.) sg2