LAWS(CAL)-2016-4-210

SRI TARAKESWAR TEWARI Vs. RAMBAHADUR SHAW & ANR.

Decided On April 27, 2016
Sri Tarakeswar Tewari Appellant
V/S
Rambahadur Shaw And Anr. Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Being unsuccessful in connection with Order dated 29.01.2016 passed by the Civil Judge, (Junior Division) 4th Court at Alipore in Title Suit No. 125 of 1995, the defendant/petitioner has filed this revisional application on the ground that the learned Court below could not appreciate the position of law in its proper perspectives and failed to consider the judgment of Supreme Court in connection with Sk. Jahangir Vs. Smt. Kaushalya & Ors., reported in 1987 (supplementary) Supreme Court Cases 630.

(2.) It appears that the defendant/petitioner has filed an application praying for dismissal of the suit on the ground that the present plaintiff/opposite parties have filed the instant suit and that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the plaintiffs and defendants. In the said application it has been specifically stated that there was no cause of action to file such suit and the appropriate course would be to withdraw the suit and thereafter to file a suit afresh.

(3.) As against this, the plaintiff/opposite party denied all the material averments splashed against him. It was also specifically contended in the said written objection that one Rajuram claiming himself as alleged constituted attorney of the defendant/petitioner, but no power of attorney was submitted before the Court below. The case was at the stage of evidence of the defendant/petitioner and only to protract the suit, they have made such innovative idea. The plaintiff/opposite parties specific case is such, that they have been substituted under Order 22, Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure vide Order dated 25.02.2005 and against which the present defendant/petitioner has not preferred any revisional application. He, however, admitted that initially the suit premises belonged to some other person and after purchasing the suit property from him, he stepped into the shoes of his predecessor-in-interest. Since he has taken a plea of reasonable requirement also, so he had to wait for three years as per statute.