MAHUYA DEY Vs. KANAK CHOUDHURY AND SONS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. P.K. Roy Choudhury, the learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. R.K. Bhuyan, the learned counsel for the respondent.

(2.) The challenge in this application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India are the orders dated 11.05.2017 and 6.6.2017, passed by the learned Civil Judge No.1, Kamrup (Metropolitan), Guwahati, in connection with T.A. No. 131/2013. By the order dated 06.06.2017, the application filed by the petitioners under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC was closed. By order dated 6.6.2017, the petition for recalling the order dated 11.5.2017 was refused.

(3.) The respondent is the landlord of the petitioners in respect of the tenanted premises. The petitioner No.1 is the proprietress of Petitioner No.2 firm. The petitioners filed TS No. 474/2010 for permanent injunction for restraining the respondent from interfering with peaceful possession of the tenanted premises. The said suit was tried by the Court of the learned Munsiff No.2, Kamrup (Metropolitan), Guwahati. The respondent contested the suit by filing written statement with counter-claim, seeking ejection of the petitioners on the ground that the petitioners was a defaulter and claiming that the suit premises was bona fide required by the respondent. The suit was dismissed and the counter-claim was allowed by judgment and decree dated 20.06.2013.