RENUKA PAL Vs. PRAHALADRAI AGGARWALLA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The short question that arises for determination in this application made by the defendants in the above suit for rejection of the plaint is whether this Court has jurisdiction to entertain and try the above suit. The petitioners, who are the defendants in the above suit, have made an alternative prayer for stay of the above suit till the disposal of the Title Suit No. 2297 of 1978 (Prahaladrai Agarwalla v. shri Rahindra Nath Paul & Ors.) now pending in the City Civil Court at Calcutta. For determination of the above question of jurisdiction a reference to the plaint of the above suit is necessary.

(2.) The main prayers in the plaint are "Decree for possession of the suit property being the first floor of the premises No. 128 Acharya Jagadish Chandra Bose Road, Calcutta save and except two rooms in possession of the said Bimal Homeo Hall (P) Ltd, and Decree for Rs.4000/- as damages." The plaintiffs' (the respondents in this application) case as stated in the plaint is that by and under an order made by the City Civil Court at Calcutta in Execution Case No. 489 of 1973 in execution of the decree passed in the Ejectment Suit No. 1206 of 1967 (Radhakanta Pal v. Dwarikanath Das & Anr.) the plaintiffs with police help obtained possession of the premises No.128, Acharya Jagadish Chandra Bose Road thereinafter referred to as 'the said premises') on or about November 27, 1978 and at all material times since then they held possession of the said premises. By an agreement of tenancy dated December 1, 1978 entered into by the plaintiff No.2 on behalf of all the plaintiffs the defendant No.3 was granted the tenancy and became a tenant of one shop room on the ground floor of the said premises. On or about December 9, 1978 the defendants wrongfully and illegally dispossessed the plaintiffs without their consent and without recourse to law of the entire first floor of the said premises save and except two rooms in possession of one Bimal Homeo Hall (P) Ltd. by forcing open the padlock to the said floor which was put by the plaintiffs after obtaining possession of the said premises. It is further alleged by the plaintiffs that the defendants have also removed the furniture kept by the plaintiffs in the first floor of the said premises. The plaintiffs' case is that before 9th December 1978 they were in actual possession of the suit property with the intention of keeping the same in their possession and duly exercised exclusive control of the suit property before they were wrongfully ousted from actual physical possession by the defendants on or about December 9m 1978. According to the plaintiffs in the aforesaid circumstances they are entitled to receive possession of the suit property notwithstanding any right title or interest which may be set up by the defendants or any of them. The plaintiff have also alleged that they have suffered damages caused by the defendants in respect of the suit property which the plaintiffs have assessed at Rs.4000/- on and from 9th December, 1978 which is the date of the plaintiffs' dispossession. In the suit the plaintiffs have claimed recovery of possession of the suit property and damages. Facts on the basis of which jurisdiction of this Court has been invoked are set out in paragraph 15 of the plaint. It is stated that - "Inasmuch as value of the suit property exceeds Rs.50,000/- and the damages claimed by the plaintiffs do not exceed Rs.5,000/- this Hon'ble Court has jurisdiction concurrent with the Small Causes Court at Calcutta and the City Civil Court at Calcutta has not the jurisdiction to entertain, try and determine this suit." In paragraph 16 of the plaint it is stated that for the purpose of Court fees the suit is valued at Rs.500/- for delivery of possession and Rs.400/- for damages.

(3.) It appears that the plaintiffs have filed the above suit under concurrent jurisdiction of this Court inasmuch as the suit is valued at Rs.4500/- i.e., Rs.500/- for delivery of possession and Rs.4000/- for damages. The question is whether this Court in exercise of its concurrent jurisdiction along with the Small Causes Court is entitled to entertain and try this suit.