AJIT KUMAR SAHA Vs. SAMPA SAHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application under Sec. 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against order No.230 dated 09.03.2015 passed by learned Judge, Small Causes Court, Sealdah in title suit No.117 of 1991 wherein and whereby learned Judge rejected the plant of the suit under Order 7, Rule 11 (D) of Code of Civil Procedure.

(2.) Pursuant to the direction given by Hon 'ble Justice Harish Tandon the petitioner has served notice upon the opposite parties as well as upon the learned Advocate representing them in the trial Court. The affidavit of service has been filed in the Court and the same be kept with the record.

(3.) Learned Advocate Subrata Ray appearing on behalf of the petitioner contended that learned Judge has erroneously quoted the sections of Arbitration and Conciliation Act of 1996 instead of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act of 1940 and thereby completely misdirected himself in deciding the application under Sec. 20 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act of 1940. It is further submitted that learned Judge erroneously quoted the sections of 1996 Act and thereby under a wrong impression rejected the plaint of the petitioner on the ground that learned Judge is not at all competent to decide the suit since the Small Causes Court is not entitled to deal with such matter.