High CourtsSingle Bench(2018) 02 CAL CK 0032

SRI VIJAY KUMAR KAJARIA & ORS. vs CHANDRA KUMAR KAJARIA & ORS.

Calcutta High Court · Decided on 2 February 2018

HON’BLE JUDGES
Sahidullah Munshi
CASE NUMBER
3948 of 2017

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

8 paragraphs · 583 words
1.

The Court :- It is submitted by Mrs. Agarwala on behalf of plaintiff that eight connected general applications i.e. GA 3733 of 2004, GA 3178 of 2008, GA 800 of 2009, GA 1324 of 2010, GA 2467 of 2013, GA 2208 of 2013, GA 2925 of 2017 and GA 3232 of 2017 are pending. She also submits that all the records including the original copy of the general applications are lying with the Advocate-on-Record of the plaintiff by virtue of an order passed by this Court on 19.5.2016.

2.

It is submitted before this Court by Mr.Roy that challenging an order allowing amendment filed by Mr. Ghosh''s client, an SLP being Civil Appeal No. 438 of 2018 was filed before the Hon''ble Apex Court and the same was disposed of by the Hon''ble Court by a Judgment and order dated January 16, 2018 holding inter alia "...we allow the Respondent No. 1 to place reliance upon the statement made in this part of paragraph 11 and treat it as an amended written statement. Beyond this, nothing else is allowed and the entire attempt made by the second amendment has to be interfered with and is set aside. (9) We thus allow the appeal and set aside the impugned judgment and request the High Court to take up the suit for hearing on a day-to-day basis as expeditiously as possible. The High Court will endeavour to hear and dispose of the suit within a period of one year from today. ....."

3.

It is also submitted by the parties that issues have already been settled before the SLP was filed and that by virtue of an order dated 19.5.2016 one Mr. Sourya Sadhan Bose, Advocate, now represented by Mr. Raja Basu Chowdhury was appointed as an Advocate Commissioner to record evidence of the witnesses. It has been ascertained from the appearing Counsel that such recording has not yet been completed. The Commissioner appointed in this matter is, however, directed to complete recording of evidence within a period of three months positively and to file his return immediately after expiry of three months since it has been brought to the notice of the Court that some of the original records are lying with the plaintiff''s Advocate-on-record, he is directed to submit such records lying with him before the Learned Registrar, Original Side by 12.2.2018.

4.

It is submitted by all the appearing Counsel that they are facing difficulties with regard to the order dated 19.5.2016 which says "The evidence action will commence on an from June 27, 2016 and will continue on a day to day basis of every working day of the High Court during Court hours'' of the High Court until the conclusion of the evidence action".

5.

Since all the practicing Advocates are to attend the Commission it is by consent of the parties that the said portion is modified to the extent that the evidence action will commence on and from 25.02.2018 and will continue for the period as mentioned hereinabove but the Commissioner is requested not to grant unnecessary adjournment to any of the parties. He will hold such commission for the second half of the day according to his convenience.

6.

Learned Registrar, Original Side, is however, directed to send records of the case to the learned Commissioner on requisition being made.

7.

Parties are directed to render their utmost cooperation to the Learned Commissioner.

8.

Let this matter go out of the list with liberty to mention.