AMAL CHANDRA DUTTA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These analogous Civil Revisions filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short the Code) and a Review Application in Civil Revision No. 299 of 1990 involve similar questions of law in suit no, 287 of 1981 filed by the Plaintiff applicant against the Union of India and others and it is convenient to dispose them of by a common judgment. Civil Revision No. 119 of 1983 shall, however, be the leading case.

(2.) Plaintiff applicant filed suit for damages with a relief that a decree for a sum of Rs. 4,33.530/- be passed against the Defendants 1 to 5 jointly and severally with pendente lite and future interest etc. with the allegations that the Plaintiff was manufacturer of drugs on the ground floor of Ram Kotbi, Tagore Villa, Alam Bazar, CaIcutta-35, wherein he was carrying on his business upto the November 1987 and after that period he was disturbed by the Border Security Security Force. Government of India, his factory completetely smashed forcibly, his business destroyed absolutely and he was thrown out illegally and the said building and land was purchased by the Government of India from the landlord of the premises. The Plaintiff has filed an application as an indigent person in 1975 in a suit for compensation and damages etc. the same was converted to Suit No. 287 of 1981.

(3.) The plaint allegations were not replied by the Defendants Union of India for about 8 (eight) months and Plaintiff had also filed an application for inspection and production of the documents relied upon by the Defendant As the plaint allegations were not replied by the Defendants for about 8 months hence according to Plaintiff suit must have been decreed under Order 27 Rule 5 read with Order 8 (Eight) Rule 10 of the Code The Defendants did not file the documents on which the defence was based and non filing of the same according to Plaintiff would mean as if there was no defence. It was also alleged by the Plaintiff that Order 10 Rule 2 statement must have been recorded As these statements were not recorded hence issues framed were illegal.