Shri. Susheel Dixit v. M/S Barefoot Resorts And Leisures Ltd. And ANR

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

[ CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR ] *** CO/6/2025 Shri Susheel Dixit Vs.

M/S. Barefoot Resorts and Leisures Ltd. and Another Mr. Gopala Binnu Kumar .... for the petitioner Ms. Anjili Nag ... for the respondents March 17, 2025 [SR] Item No.5 1.

The plaintiff is the applicant/petitioner.

2.

The plaintiff leased out the property in question to the respondents for a period of ten years. The plaintiff alleged that by reason of expiry of said lease, the respondents were obliged to hand over the possession of the suit property. 3.

The suit had progressed substantially and after the evidence was concluded at the argument stage, an application was filed by the respondents for amendment of the written statement.

4.

Mr. Gopala Binnu Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that amendment at this belated stage should not have been allowed and the entire purpose was to delay the trial.

5.

Ms. Anjili Nag, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite parties has submitted that contemporaneous to the suit for eviction, a suit was filed by the

respondents for specific performance of contract and the said suit is also pending. Both the suits are proceeding parallely. 6.

Having regard to the nature of the dispute, both the suits are to be heard together in order to avoid any conflict of decision.

7.

By the proposed amendment, the defendants have tried to introduce events that had taken place after 1st September, 2024 i.e the second term of the original lease if it was extended in favour of the defendants under the lease agreement in view of the renewal clause. The subsequent events brought out in paragraph 34 are relevant for the purpose of deciding both the suits and hence I do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the learned Trial Judge.

8.

However, having regard to the controversy, I direct the learned District Judge to transfer the suit being O.A.No.135 of 2016 to the Court of learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Port Blair where the other suit being O.A.No.138 of 2015 is pending since the cause of action for the subsequent suit would be the defence in O.S.No.138 of 2015 and can be treated as a counter claim to the Other Suit No.135 of 2016. The evidence already recorded in O.S.No.138 of 2015 shall also govern the evidence in the other suit no.135 of 2016.

9.

However, the parties shall be entitled to adduce evidence limited to the amendment being allowed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Port Blair in its order dated 10th January, 2025.

10.

Consequent upon such amendment being carried out, the plaintiff shall file additional pleading within two weeks from date of service of the amended written statement. The learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Port Blair shall fix the matter after the pleadings are complete and proceed with the hearing of both the suits and make all endeavour to dispose of both the suits as expeditiously as possible in view of the facts that the said suits are pending for almost 9 years.

11.

This order shall be immediately communicated to the learned District Judge, for information and compliance. 12.

The application stands disposed of with the aforesaid directions.

( Soumen Sen, J. )