LAWS(CAL)-2011-1-14

SK RAJU Vs. ASIT KUMAR DE

Decided On January 05, 2011
SK.RAJU Appellant
V/S
ASIT KUMAR DE Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS application is at the instance of the defendant no.1(kha) and is directed against the order no.221 dated December 19, 2006 and the order no.226 dated April 18, 2007 both passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), First Court, Midnapore(West) in other Suit No.1 of 1995.

(2.) THE short fact is that the plaintiffs/opposite parties herein instituted the Other Suit No.1 of 1995 in the Court of the learned Munsif, First Court, Midnapore against the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner praying for a decree of eviction, for recovery of possession and other reliefs. THE predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner entered appearance in the suit and he was contesting the said suit by filing a written statement denying, inter alia, all the materials averments made in the plaint. On October 23, 1998, the original defendant executed a deed of agreement to the effect that after his demise, the petitioner, being his third son, would carry on his business in the name and style of Sitala Cotton Stores upon payment of rent in favour of the landlord and also other taxes to the Government and that his other legal heirs would have no objection to the same.

(3.) IN fact, the order dated March 8, 2006 was passed in favour of the defendant no.1(kha)/petitioner without hearing the plaintiffs. For that reason, the learned Trial Judge by the impugned order dated December 19, 2006 gave an opportunity to the plaintiffs to revive their submission again holding that any mistake committed by the Court either inadvertently or any misrepresentation of facts by any of the parties should be rectified. The fact remains that after the death of the original defendant, his heirs have been substituted. The tenancy right is heritable. For that reasons, the learned Trial Judge has recalled the order dated March 8, 2006 by the impugned order dated December 19, 2006 for giving a fresh hearing. If fresh hearing is given, the present petitioner has nothing to loose and so, there is no question of suffering any prejudice by him.