LAWS(CAL)-2011-6-3

NAILA SAMREEN SHAHAB Vs. KANAN MUKHERJEE

Decided On June 22, 2011
NAILA SAMREEN SHAHAB Appellant
V/S
KANAN MUKHERJEE Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application is at the instance of the substituted plaintiff and is directed against the order dated August 9, 2010 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), 2nd Court, Alipore in T. S. No. 41 of 1994 thereby rejecting the application for stay of all further proceedings of the said suit and the suit being E.O.S. No.48 of 1999 for declaration pending before the Hon'ble High Court, Calcutta till the disposal of the two probate cases.

(2.) The predecessor-in-interest of the present plaintiff instituted a suit being T.S. 41 of 1994 for declaration and perpetual injunction. In that suit, the defendant no.3/opposite party herein entered an appearance and he filed a written statement raising also a counterclaim for a decree for specific performance of contract and such a counterclaim has been converted into the Title Suit being Title Suit No. 88 of 1996. The plaintiff of the Title Suit No. 41 of 1994 was required to file a written statement against the counterclaim. The original plaintiff (since deceased) executed a registered will dated November 23, 1992 in respect of all his properties including the premises no. 27 A & 27 B, Syed Amir Ali Avenue, Kolkata-700017 in favour of the plaintiff. He was also alleged to have executed another will in respect of the selfsame properties on March 20, 1995. Two probate proceedings are pending. He was also alleged to have executed a deed of trust on March 20, 1995. The executors of the will dated November 20, 1992 instituted a suit being Title Suit No.15 of 1996 and that suit is now pending before this Hon'ble Court, Calcutta being E.O.S. No.48 of 1999. At that juncture, the plaintiff filed an application for stay of the two suits and an another suit being E.O.S. No.48 of 1999 pending before the Hon'ble High Court till the disposal of the two probate proceedings. That application was rejected by the impugned order. Being aggrieved, this application has been preferred.

(3.) Now the question is whether the impugned order should be sustained.