RAJA KATRA PVT LTD Vs. SUJIT KUMAR AUDDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application is at the instance of the plaintiff and is directed against the order dated October 30, 2005 passed by the learned Judge, Small Causes Court, Fourth Court, Calcutta in ejectment suit no.592 of 2002 thereby rejecting an application filed by the plaintiff. The plaintiff filed a suit for ejectment being no.403 of 1991 in the City Civil Court at Calcutta for eviction of the sole defendant, Ajit Kumar Auddy from the premises in suit, as described in the schedule of the plaint. That suit was subsequently transferred to Small Causes Court, Calcutta and renumbered as Ejectment Suit No.592 of 2002. Ajit Kumar Auddy died sometime in 1994 and his brothers and sisters were substituted in his place. Summons have been served upon all the substituted defendants but none of the substituted defendants have appeared and filed any written statement in the ejectment suit or in the appeal pending before the Hon'ble High Court except, the defendant no.3, Ranjit Kumar Auddy who appeared and filed a written statement and other incidental applications like under Section 17(2) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 in the suit before the Small Causes Court.

(2.) In the instant suit, no written intimation of the death of Sujit Kumr Auddy and Uma Rani Das has been filed at any stage. On learning from the information furnished by Ranjit Kumar Auddy in the other suit being no. Title Suit No.590 of 2002 between the parties that Sujit Kumar Auddy and Uma Rani Dutta died, the plaintiff's Advocate wrote a letter dated December 15, 2006 to Mr. Surajit Auddy, Learned Advocate requesting the contesting defendant's Advocate to furnish the names of the heirs of Sujit Kumar Auddy and Uma Rani Dutta. The defendant nos.3 & 7's Advocate is also the son of the contesting defendant, Ranjit Kumar Auddy. But he did not furnish the names of heirs of Sujit Kumar Auddy and Uma Rani Dutta. In spite of efforts, the petitioner has not been able to ascertain the names of heirs of the deceased substituted defendants.

(3.) Under such circumstances, the plaintiff filed an application before the Small Causes Court for deletion of the names of noncontesting dead defendants. The contesting defendant filed an objection to the said application and contended that the entire suit has abated by operation of law. The petitioner has no obligation to substitute the heirs of the non-contesting deceased substituted defendants who were not contesting the suit. But the learned Trial Judge rejected the application by the impugned order holding that the suit has abated. Being aggrieved by the said order, this application has been filed.