MADHAB CHANDRA DUTTA Vs. SAMARENDRA NATH BHADRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two applications are taken up together and they are disposed by this common judgment. The two applications are at the instance of the respective defendants of the two cases and are directed against the Orders dated November 8, 2011 and November 14, 2011 passed by the learned Chief Judge, Presidency Small Causes Court, Calcutta in S.C.C. Suit No.s 362 of 2006 and 367 of 2006 respectively thereby rejecting applications under Section 19A of the Presidency Small Causes Court Act.

(2.) THE short fact involved in the two matters is that the mother of the petitioner was originally a monthly tenant in respect of the premises in suit as described in the schedule of the plaint respectively. After demise of the mother of the petitioner, her son inherited the said tenancy and became a monthly tenant of the same. THE opposite parties have contended that they purchased the premises in suit by a registered Deed of Sale and they filed the suit for eviction being S.C.C. Suit No.s 362 of 2006 and 367 of 2006 respectively contending, inter alia, that the defendants of the suits were licensees in respect of the premises in suit. THE suits were decreed ex parte by the learned Registrar, Small Causes Court, Calcutta. THEreafter, applications under Order 9 Rule 13 of the C.P.C. were filed for setting aside the ex parte decrees and the learned Chief Judge, Small Causes Court initially fixed the matters for himself for hearing. THEreafter, they were transferred to the 3rd Bench, Small Causes Court, and again taken back the suit and the learned Chief Judge proceeded to hear the applications under Order 9 Rule 13 of the C.P.C. At that stage, the petitioners filed an application under Section 19A of the Presidency Small Causes Court, Calcutta, in the respective suits contending, inter alia, that the applications for setting aside the ex parte decree are to be heard and disposed of by the Court which passed the decree, that is, the learned Registrar, Small Causes Court, Calcutta and not by the learned Chief Judge. That prayer was rejected by the impugned order. Being aggrieved, these two applications have been preferred.

(3.) DURING argument, Mr. Ashok Bhattacharyya, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that this Honble Court cannot pass any order in violation of the statutory provisions of the Presidency Small Causes Court Act, 1882 and as such, instead of complying with the directions of this Honble Court, the learned Chief Judge ought to have sent the application under Order 9 Rule 13 of the C.P.C. to the learned Registrar for disposal. With due respect to Mr. Bhattacharyya, I am of the view that the learned Chief Judge, Presidency Small Causes Court, cannot take a view contrary to that expressed by this Honble Court. The learned Chief Judge, Presidency Small Court is to follow the directions of this Honble Court in verbatim and he has no other alternative way It may be noted herein that there is no material-on-record, to show that being aggrieved by the order of this Honble Court in C.O. No.1619 of 2011, the petitioners preferred any review before this Honble Bench or any Special Leave Petition before this Honble Apex Court. So, the order passed by the Honble Court in C.O. No. 1619 of 2011 shall sustain and the learned Chief Judge, City Civil Court, is quiet within its jurisdiction to follow the directions by this Honble Court.