Ratna Debnath v. Mamata Rani Das And ANR

24.04.2024 Sl. No.64(DL) srm C.O. No. 138 of 2024 Ratna Debnath

Versus

Mamata Rani Das Majumder & Anr.

Mr. Satyam Mukherjee, Ms. Sayani Ahmed, Mr. Purnendu Shekhar Ghosh ...for the Petitioner.

Mr. Rabnindranath Mahato, Mr. Bipul Kumar Mondal, Mr. Aritra Shankar Ray ...for the Opposite Party No.1.

1. The order that can be passed in this revisional is that Title Suit No.154 of 2008, which is pending before the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), 2nd Court at Barasat, North 24-Parganas, must remain stayed till disposal of Title Appeal No.21 of 2020, which is pending before the learned Additional District Judge, 3rd Court at Barasat, North 24-Parganas.

2. This order is required to be passed in order to avoid conflicting decisions. Both the title suit and the title appeal deal with the selfsame property, in which the parties have rival claims.

3. The petitioner claims 33 decimals in the suit property, whereas the opposite party No.1 claims 19 decimals in the selfsame property. The petitioner obtained a decree of declaration of title in respect of 16.5 decimals, instead of 33 decimals. He preferred the appeal.

4. Thus, if the later suit proceeds and a decision is taken, there may be a conflict of decisions. The title appeal arose out of Title Suit No.99 of 2008, which was a prior suit. Title Suit No.154 of 2008 had been stayed till disposal of Title Suit No.99 of 2008. The appeal is a continuation of the suit.

5. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed in Title Suit No.99 of 2008, the title appeal was preferred and a prayer was made before the learned trial judge for stay of Title Suit No.154 of 2008 on the ground that if the suit proceeds and is decided, the appeal will become infructuous or if conflicting decisions are passed, then there will be multiplicity of proceedings.

6. I agree with the contention of Mr. Mukherjee, learned Advocate for the petitioner.

7. Thus, until Title Appeal No.21 of 2020 is disposed of. Title Suit No.154 of 2008 shall remain stayed.

8. A rival claim has been made by the opposite party No.1 in Title Suit No.154 of 2008. The adjudication of the same is being delayed in view of pendency of the title appeal, thus the learned court before whom the title appeal is pending, is requested to dispose of the appeal within a period of six months.

9. The order impugned is set aside.

10. The revisional application is, thus, disposed of.

11. There shall be no order as to costs.

12. Parties are directed to act on the basis of the server copy of this order.

(Shampa Sarkar, J.)