(1.) The hearing stems from an application filed by the petitioner praying for revision of the impugned order being No. 41 dated 22.05.2000 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), 2nd Court, Barasat, 24 Pgs. (N) in T.S. 252/95.
(2.) The circumstances leading to the present revision are that the present petitioner filed T.S. 77/93 in the City Civil Court at Calcutta for a decree for Rs. 3,15,913.66p., interest, charge, sale & realisation of the disputed properties etc. The properties mortgaged by defendants/respondents 2 & 3 are situated at Rajarhat in Dumdum Municipality within the jurisdiction of Barasat Court and outside the jurisdiction of the City Civil Court at Calcutta. In view of the lack of jurisdiction of the City Civil Court at Calcutta to entertain any suit relating to the said immovable properties at Rajarhat, the petitioner had filed Mortgage Suit being No. T.S 252/1995 in the Court of Assistant District Judge, 1st Court, Barasat against the defendants/respondents for a decree for the said amount of Rs. 3,15,913.66p. interest, declaration of charge etc. In the said Mortgage Suit, defendants 2 & 3 in their W.S. substantially agreed to pay the legitimate dues by instalments but challenged the maintainability of the suit because of the earlier suit filed by the petitioner in the City Civil Court at Calcutta. By the impugned order the learned Judge stayed the Mortgage Suit till disposal of the previously instituted suit being T.S. 77/93 in the City Civil Court at Calcutta on the grounds that reliefs in both the suits are same and identical, that the matter in issue in the Mortgage suit is directly and substantially in issue in the previously instituted suit, that the City Civil Court like Barasat Court was competent to grant reliefs claimed ant that there could be conflict of decisions if the two suits are heard by two different Courts.
(3.) Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the above order, the petitioner preferred the present revision.