AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Biswajit Basu, J
The matter although has appeared in the list under the heading "Extension of Interim Order", by the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties the revisional application is taken up for final disposal.
The petitioner has filed the connected suit seeking eviction of the opposite party no. 1 describing it as the tenant under him in respect of the suit property. The said suit being Ejectment Suit No. 68 of 2014 is pending before the learned Judge 3rd Bench, Small Causes Court, Calcutta.
The proforma opposite party no. 4 has also filed a suit before the Original Side of this Court being C.S. No. 155 of 2004, for a decree of recovery of possession of the selfsame property describing the opposite party no. 1 and its office bearers as trespassers therein.
The opposite party no. 4 filed an application under Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure in the ejectment suit filed by the petitioner praying stay of all further proceedings of the said suit pending disposal of the suit filed by him in the Original Side of this Court.
The learned Trial Judge by the order impugned being Order No. 37 dated January 09, 2018 has allowed the said application holding that the said two suits are between the same parties in respect of the selfsame property and the issues in both the suits are similar, therefore, the further proceedings of the ejectment suit filed by the petitioner shall remained stayed pending disposal of the previously instituted suit filed by the proforma opposite party no. 4 before the Original Side of this Court.
The petitioner is seeking eviction of the opposite party/club from the suit property describing it as the tenant under him whereas the opposite party no. 4 although is seeking the same relief but describing the said club as trespasser of the property in question.
Therefore, the difference of status of the said club in the said two suits will obviously give rise to different issues for determination in the said suits, restricting the applicability of Section 10 of the Code in staying the further proceedings of the subsequently instituted ejectment suit.
That being the position, the order impugned is set aside.
However, it is made clear that this order will not prevent the plaintiff of C.S. 155 of 2004 to take appropriate steps in accordance with law for clubbing both the suits for analogous trial.
With the above, C.O. 2090 of 2018 is disposed of.
There shall be no order for costs.
Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties subject to compliance with all requisite formalities.