CHAITALI KABASHI Vs. SIPRA MONDAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application is directed against the order no.63 dated January 24, 2008 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court No.1 at Sealdah in Title Appeal No.29 of 2005 thereby directing analogous hearing of the two appeals.

(2.) The short fact is that the opposite party no.1 filed the Title Suit No.155 of 1986 before the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Second Court at Sealdah praying for perpetual injunction restraining the defendant, his men and agents from transferring the suit property in any way, for declaration of the plaintiff's title to the suit property described in the schedule A and for recovery of possession of the property described in schedule B of the plaint and other reliefs against the petitioner, Sipra Mondal, Monoj Santra and Goutam Ram. That suit was decreed on contest and against the said suit, two title appeals being Title Appeal No.54 of 2002 and the Title Appeal No.74 of 2002 were filed. The judgment and decree were challenged by the two defendants by filing two separate appeals, as stated above, before the appellate court. Smt. Sipra Mondal, plaintiff of the suit, filed an application for analogous hearing of the two appeals. The present petitioner filed objection against such petition and upon hearing both the sides over the application and its objection, the learned appellate court allowed the application directing that the two appeals shall be heard analogously. Being aggrieved by the said order, this application has been filed for setting aside the impugned order.

(3.) The point that arises for decision is whether the impugned order can be upheld. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on consideration of the materials on record, I find that the plaintiff/opposite party no.1 filed the title suit against the defendants, just stated above and the suit was decreed on contest.