LAWS(CAL)-2011-9-97

NOBLE TREXIM PVT LTD Vs. BASABI DUTTA CHOWDHURY

Decided On September 26, 2011
NOBLE TREXIM PVT. LTD. Appellant
V/S
BASABI DUTTA CHOWDHURY Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner and the opposite parties are the plaintiff and the defendants respectively in a suit for specific performance of contract, pending on the file of the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), 1st Court at Alipore, District 24 Parganas (South).

(2.) ON an earlier occasion, the petitioner had approached this Court with an application under Article 227 of the Constitution assailing order no. 55 dated March 8/17, 2011. This Court disposed of the said revisional application on May 19, 2011 with the following order: Having heard Mr. Deb, learned senior advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Mukherjee, learned advocate for the opposite parties, this revisional application stands disposed of with a request to the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), 1st Court at Alipore, who is in seisin of Title Suit No. 38 of 2007, to make appropriate assessment in terms of Section 35 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 so as to provide the petitioner with an opportunity to deposit the assessed amount as a pre-condition for having the instrument admitted in evidence in the event the petitioner deposits that assessed amount within 3(three) weeks from that such assessment is notified to it, the learned Judge shall proceed to consider and decide the suit as expeditiously as possible since, I am told, it has reached the stage of recording evidence of the witnesses. Till expiry of time to make deposit in terms of the assessment to be made in terms of this order, the suit shall not proceed. It is further made clear that if within the period as directed above the petitioner does not deposit the assessed amount, it shall have no further opportunity of extension for such purpose and the learned Judge shall proceed to decide the suit without admitting the instrument, according to law. This revisional application stands disposed of.

(3.) THE order dated August 9, 2011 is challenged in this revisional application by the petitioner.