COMPETENT AUTHORITY Vs. DAVID MANTOSH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners in this revisional application under Article 227 of the Constitution are the defendants 3 and 4 in Title Suit No.87 of 2007 (since renumbered T.S No.6 of 2010), pending on the file of the learned Judge, Small Causes Court, Sealdah. Challenge in this application is to order no. 47 dated 6/10/2010 passed by the learned Judge, whereby two petitions filed by the petitioners, one under Order 7 Rule 11, Civil Procedure Code (hereafter the Code) and the other under Order 2 Rule 2 thereof, were rejected.

(2.) MR. Rabindra Narayan Dutta, learned advocate for the petitioners contended that the learned Judge erred in the exercise of his jurisdiction in rejecting the petitions. He invited the Court"s attention to the facts pleaded in the plaint, referred to relevant provisions of the Code as well as the Limitation Act (hereafter the Act) and relied on a host of decisions to buttress his contention that the plaintiffs (opposite parties 1 to 7) have grossly abused the process of law and the Court and the plaint filed by them was liable to be rejected, and in not so rejecting, the learned Judge has added to the woes of the petitioners in contesting the suit, which is barred by limitation and by res judicata and/or principles analogous thereto as well as principles underlying Order 2 Rule 2 of the Code. He, accordingly, prayed for setting aside of the order impugned and for rejection of the plaint.

(3.) IN the petition under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code, the sole contention raised is that having regard to the allegation of the plaintiffs that the predecessor-in-interest of the defendant no. 1 had trespassed in the suit property on 25/1/1992, the suit ought to have been filed within 12 years from that date and hence it was barred in view of the provisions of Articles 64 and 65 of the Act.