AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
This revisional application is directed against an order No. 36 dated 21st November 2017 passed by learned Civil Judge (Jr. Div), 4th Court, Sealdah in Title Suit No. 357 of 2013 by which an application for analogues hearing of the said suit with Title Suit No. 184 of 2013 is dismissed.
The challenge is also made to the order 38 dated 14th December 2017 passed in the said suit rejecting an application for appointment of the advocate commissioner and recalling the defendant''s first witness. According to the petitioner he filed Title Suit No. 184 of 2013 for declaration that he is entitled to reconstruct the toilet with consequential reliefs. The other suit being 357 of 2013 was filed by the plaintiff/opposite party for recovery of possession on the ground of revocation of licence. Both the suits are proceeding separately and as per the petitioner the suit filed by them is at the stage of ex parte hearing as the defendant/opposite party did not appear therein despite the service of summons.
The suit filed by the plaintiff/opposite party who is defendant in the suit filed by the petitioner is being proceeded with and the petitioner''s first witness is being examined and cross-examined. At this stage an application was taken out for analogues hearing of both the suits as it relates to the same subject property. The Court can direct the analogues hearing of the suit provided some of the disputes involved in the both the suits are common and require same set of evidence to be recorded into. The suit filed by the petitioner is restricted to an issue whether the petitioner has a right to reconstruct the toilet. It is an independent suit and have no bearing or connection with the recovery of possession on the ground of revocation of licence.
Both the suits can be conveniently proceeded with independently and separately and therefore the Court should not allow the consolidation of the suits. Furthermore, in a suit for recovery of possession against the alleged licencee, there is no necessity for appointment of the commissioner for the purpose of ascertaining whether there was reminiscence in the toilet at the suit plot or the petitioner was using the toilet for all time to come in a suit for recovery of possession against the alleged licencee. The Court shall appoint the commissioner provided it is necessary for preservation, protection and inspection and the report may throw some light on the issues involved therein.
This Court, therefore, does not find that it is a fit case where the advocate commissioner should be appointed for such purposes which is unconnected and unrelated to any issues involved therein.
The orders impugned thus do not suffer from any illegality and/or infirmity.
The revisional application is thus dismissed.
There shall be no order as to costs.