Debasish Saha & ors. v. Kazi Asikul Islam & Ors.
Case at a glance
- Decided
- 24 Feb 2023
- Bench
- AJOY KUMAR MUKHERJEE
Provisions considered
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 s. 16(b)
Judgment
Mr. Rwitendra Banerjee Mr. Shibasis Chatterjee Mr. Debdutta Pathak …for the petitioner Mr. Uday Narayan Betal Mr. Partha Sarathi Mondal …for the O.P. nos. 1,6 & 7 in C.O. 3117 of 2022 Mr. Uday Narayan Betal Mr. Partha Sarathi Mondal …for the O.P. nos. 1,2 & 3 in C.O. 3115 of 2022 Re: CAN 1 of 2023 This is an application for restoration of order dated
01.2.2023 passed by this court whereby this court was pleased to dismiss the application being C.O. 3115 of 2022, as the petitioner was not represented on that date. The grounds shown in the restoration application, are sufficient and accordingly, the prayer for restoration is allowed. Let C.O. 3115 of 2022 be restored in its original file and number. 2 Accordingly, CAN 1 of 2023 is disposed of. Re: C.O. 3115 of 2022 C.O. 3117 of 2022 In C.O. 3115 of 2022, this application has arisen in connection with Title Suit no. 205 of 2022 pending before the court of learned Civil Judge, (Junior Division), Additional court at Krishnanagar, Nadia where opposite party No. 1 has prayed interalia for a declaration that plaintiff and the defendants are joint owners in respect of ‘A’ schedule property and the plaintiff is owner of ‘B’ schedule property to the plaint and also for a declaration that the power of attorney described in Schedule ‘C’ to the plaint is void and also for permanent injunction.
In this application, the petitioner has sought for transfer of said suit which is presently pending before the court of learned Civil Judge, (Senior Division) 2nd Court, at Krishnanagar to the court of learned Civil Judge at Jangipur, Murshidabad, having jurisdiction, to try the suit. In support of the transfer, the petitioner has contended that the cause of action of the said suit arose within the jurisdiction of Jangipur court as the impugned power of attorney was executed and registered at Jangipur. Moreover, all principal defendants being nos. 1 to 4 of that suit, are the resident of Murshidabad. He further submits that the witnesses of the said suit also reside in Jangipur, Murshidabad and as such the suit should be transferred to the court at Jangipur 3 Murshidabad. In this context, he relied upon judgments learned District Judge, Nadia at Krishnanagore immediately. As submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that most of the witnesses and principal defendants of Title suit no.
205 of 2022 resides within Jangipur area, if any of the principal defendants or their witnesses are not able to come to attend the court on a particular date, they can always apply for exemption and such application will undoubtedly be considered by trial court on it’s merit. Accordingly, C.O. 3115 of 2022 and C.O. 3117 of 2022 are disposed of. 6 Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, duly applied for, be given to the parties upon compliance of all requisite formalities. (Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee, J.)
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — s. 16(b).
Which court decided this case, and when?
Calcutta High Court, on 24 Feb 2023. The bench was AJOY KUMAR MUKHERJEE.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.