CHITTARANJAN PAL Vs. DHIRENDRA NATH BISWAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two Civil Rules arise out of two applications under section 25 of the provincial small Causes Court Act, 1887 and they have been ordered to be heard analogously. The applicants in both these cases are the same. They have filed two suits being Small Causes Court suit No. 2 of 1 978 against Nor Mahammed Ali and Small Causes court Suit No. 3 of 1978 against one Dhirendra Nath Biswas in the 2nd Court of Munsif at Basirhat (S. C. C. Judge) for realisation of arrears of rent. They claimed to have acquired exclusive interest in the property in which the opposite parties of these two civil rules were holding as tenants.

(2.) BOTH the opposite parties raised a plea before the learned s. C. C. Judge that is they held tenancy under one Asoke Mitra and had been paying rent to him and as Asoke Kumar Mitra sold away his share to Samjed Ali and Sandhya Rani Modak and as the opposite parties were paying rent to them and a title suit is pending decision between the petitioner and those purchasers complicated questions of title have arises, and the plaint should be returned by the learned Judge. The learned Judge returned both the plaints holding that there is a complicated question of title involved in. the instant suits which cannot be decided by the Small Causes Court, specially when there is a suit pending between the parties over the matter. With those observations he returned the plaint to the present petitioners in both the suits for presenting the same to a Court having jurisdiction to determine the title. Being aggrieved these two applications have been filed before this Court under section 25 of the provincial Small Cause Court Act.

(3.) IT has been contended on behalf of the petitioners that the learned Small Causes Court Judge was in error in returning the plaint, that he had jurisdiction to enter into the question of title as a collateral issue, that there was no complicated question of title, that only because a title suit is pending in between the present petitioners and some other persons, who, admittedly purchased the four annas share of Asoke Kumar Mitra subsequent to the purchase of the present petitioners, it cannot be held that there is such a complicated question of title which could compel the learned Small Causes Court to return the plaint.