Supriya Chattopadhyay And ANR v. Kabra Marbles Corporation And ORS

March 14, 2024 Sl. No.16 & 17 Court No.19 s.biswas CO 2675 of 2022 With CO 1844 of 2023 Supriya Chattopadhyay and another vs.

Kabra Marbles Corporation and others Mr. Anirudha Chatterjee Mr. Iftekar Munshi ... for the petitioner Mr. Haradhan Banerjee Mr. Amitava Pain Mr. Subhrangshu Datta Mr. Partha Pratim Mukherjee ... for the opposite parties Let the two revisional applications are detagged. In re: CO 2675 of 2022 This revisional application arises out of the manner in which the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), 1st Court at Alipore, has been dealing with Ejectment Suit No.05 of 2008. Allegation is of unnecessary delay.

Mr.

Chatterjee, learned advocate for petitioner submits that the defence of the tenant was struck off. Despite the defence having been struck off, the learned court had kept the matter pending for days together, only to trace out the written statement.

According to Mr. Chatterjee, there was no requirement for the written statement as the defendants did not have right to a defence. The defendants could not place their own case in the eviction suit

Mr. Banerjee, learned advocate appearing for the tenant submits that a copy of the written statement which had been retained by defendants could easily be handed over to the court and the court could proceed accordingly.

Having heard the respective parties, this court finds that by order dated November 30, 2015, the defence of the tenants had been struck off. Under such circumstances, the tenants only have a right to cross-examine the plaintiff and advance arguments to demolish the plaint case. The defendants cannot set up their own defence. Thus, irrespective of whether the written statement is on record or not, the averments of the defendants in support of their case, cannot be taken into consideration.

Reference is made to Modula India v.

Kamakshya Singh Deo reported in AIR 1989 SC

162. The relevant portion is quoted below:- "For the above reasons, we agree with the view of Ramendra Mohan Dutta, ACJ that, even in a case where the defence against delivery of possession of a tenant is struck off under section 17(4) of the Act, the defendant, subject to the exercise of an appropriate discretion by the court on the facts of a particular case, would generally be entitled: (a) to cross-examine the plaintiff's witnesses; and (b) to address argument on the basis of the plaintiff's case.

We would like to make it clear that the defendant would not be entitled to lead any evidence of his own nor can his crossexamination be permitted to travel beyond

the very limited objective of pointing out the falsity or weaknesses of the plaintiff's case. In no circumstances should crossexamination be permitted to travel beyond this legitimate scope and to convert itself virtually into a presentation of defendant's case either directly or in the form of suggestions put to plaintiff's witnesses."

The revisional application is disposed of.

Accordingly, the learned court is directed to dispose of the suit within six months from date.

In re: CO 1844 of 2023 Let this matter appear under the heading 'To Be Mentioned' on March 20, 2024.

(Shampa Sarkar, J.)