SHREE KRISHNA BAHETY Vs. SUKHPAL SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By the impugned order being No. 13 dated 16th June, 2010 passed by the Ld. Judge, 12th Bench, City Civil Court at Calcutta in T.S. No. 2300 of 2009, two applications filed by the respective parties were disposed of by the Learned Trial Judge. By the first part of the said order, the Plaintiff's prayer for withdrawal of the suit with liberty to sue afresh on the self same cause of action, was allowed by the Learned Trial Judge. By the latter part of the impugned order the Defendant's application for reference under Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was rejected by the Learned Trial Judge. Since this part of the impugned order is appealable under Section 341 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the Defendant does not want to challenge the said part of the impugned order before this Court. Leave has been sought for permitting the Defendant to file an appeal for challenging this part of the impugned order before the appropriate forum. In my view no such leave is necessary for challenging this part of the impugned order before the appropriate forum. It is thus made clear that the order which is passed herein, will not affect the Defendant's right to challenge that part of the impugned order before the appropriate forum.

(2.) Mr. Ghosh, learned Advocate appearing for the Petitioner, very candidly submitted before this Court that he would restrict his submission with regard to the propriety of the first part of the impugned order by which the Plaintiff's prayer for withdrawal of the suit with liberty to sue afresh, was allowed by the Learned Trial Judge.

(3.) Heard Mr. Ghosh, learned Advocate for the Petitioner and Mr. Roy, learned Advocate for the opposite party. Considered the materials on record including the order impugned.