Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

Seeking transfer of the suit the petitioner filed an application under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure in the District Court and made out the following grounds for transfer :-
1) That the opposite party, Sourav Sasaru, is a practicing Lawyer at Uluberia Court and Amta Court. He has a huge influence at Uluberia Court. He has lot of manpower and money. The wife of the said opposite party, namely, Smt. Piyali Sasaru, is also a practicing Advocate of Uluberia Court. The two uncles of the opposite party, Sri Arun Sasaru and Sri Barun Sasaru, both are also Lawyers of Uluberia Court attached to the same Sheristha of the opposite party.
2) That the petitioner was facing inconvenience in attending the Court for the purpose of day-to-day tadbir as well as taking necessary steps as per instructions of her learned Advocate, more importantly, it would be inconvenient for her to get any practicing Advocate.

Such prayer was opposed by the present opposite party by filing written objection. The allegations and counter-allegations made by the parties have been dealt with by the learned Judge in his order dated 25th April, 2017 and came to a conclusion that the petitioner and the opposite party are brother and sister and their uncles, as referred to in the petition, are also uncles common to both the parties. Prior to her marriage the petitioner also used to reside in the said house where the opposite party/defendant and their uncles are residing now. That apart, the opposite party/defendant and his two uncles are Advocates of Uluberia Court. At the same time, the petitioner and her father was also a renowned Lawyer of Uluberia Court. Once upon a time, the husband of the petitioner was also an Advocate of Uluberia Court and now he has been serving in the Haldia Dock Complex and used to commute his journey from his own house. It has been pointed out in the order that, although, the petitioner is residing in her in-laws' house with two children about 10 years and 7 years of age, but both of them are studying in Kolkata. The petitioner is managing her family from her in-laws' house in Chatterjeehat.

That the petitioner never disclosed that the opposite party/defendant is her full-blooded brother and that she is a Law Graduate having registration number with the Bar Association of Uluberia Court. Therefore, the petitioner suppressed the material fact.

Although, the learned Advocate for the opposite party/defendant filed a certified copy of order no.10 dated 15/01/2015 of the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Uluberia, Howrah, wherefrom it would transpire that the petitioner, Monalisa Koley, is also a practicing Advocate of the then Bar Association and was appointed as Advocate Commissioner for local inspection in T.S. No.89/14 but the learned Advocate for the petitioner filed another certified copy of T.S. No.89/14 which would reveal that the plaintiff of that Title Suit filed a petition praying for changing the the Advocate Commissioner as the learned Commissioner is not a member of Bar Association of Uluberia and on being heard both sides the name of the petitioner was substituted by another practicing Advocate.

On perusal of the petition filed before the District Court in Misc. Case No. 59 of 2016 (application under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure) it appears that the petitioner placed the following facts in paragraphs 5, 6 and 7 thereof. Those are set out below:

"5. That the opposite party Sri Sourav Sasaru is a practising lawyer at Uluberia Court and Amta Court. He has a huge influence at Uluberia Court. He has lot of manpower and lot of money power. The wife of the opposite party Smt. Piyali Sasaru is also practising Advocate of Uluberia Court. The two uncle of the opposite party Arun Sasaru and Sri Barun Sasaru both are also lawyers at Uluberia Court attached with the same sherishta of the opposite party.