Shri.M.Ramamoorthy v. Shri.K.Bala Krishnan And ANR

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

[ CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR ] *** CO/22/2026 Shri. M. Ramamoorthy Vs Shri. K. Bala Krishnan and another Mr. Suveer Golder ... for the petitioner March 20, 2026 [AKB] Item No.3 1.

This revisional application has been filed seeking issuance of a direction upon the learned Court of Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division at Port Blair to hear the counter claim of the present petitioner qua defendant No.1 in Other Suit No. 47 of 2023 expeditiously and to dispose of the same within a time frame.

2.

It is submitted by the learned advocate representing the petitioner that the petitioner being a septuagenarian person is the owner and recorded tenant of the land in respect of the suit premises as described in the schedule property and the shop room was let out to the respondent No.1 herein on monthly rental basis. Since the present petitioner asked the respondent to vacate the tenanted premises, a suit was filed by the tenant being respondent No.1 for protection against illegal eviction and perpetual injunction.

3.

The present petitioner /defendant appeared, filed written statement along with the counter claim praying for eviction of the tenant. When the suit was reached at the stage of hearing by order No.14 dated 27.12.2023 due to not when not taking steps by the plaintiff the learned Court observed that no show

cause was also filed by the plaintiff and directed the suit filed by the plaintiff to be dismissed fixing the next date on February 14, 2024 for ex-parte hearing in respect of the counter claim.

4.

On the date said one application was filed by the petitioner with a prayer to direct the respondent No.1 to pay arrear of rent. In connection with the proceeding the matter was adjourned on several occasion and lastly on 26.03.2025 an intimation of death of the plaintiff /defendant in counter claim /respondent no 1 was informed by an advocate in respect of the suit filed by the present respondent No.1 and also expressed her unwillingness to take any steps on his behalf. 5.

Learned Court heard the same and again directed to show cause thereafter as to why the case shall not be dismissed for default, fixing the date for filing show cause and lastly on 30.04.2025 passed in order of dismissal for the second time in respect of the suit filed by the respondent No.1 without fixing any date for counter claim.

6.

No whisper can be found from the order regarding the fate of the counter claim when it was running in the list on peremptory hearing.

7.

Since no order was passed in respect of the counter claim, the learned advocate for the petitioner filed one application under Section 151 to bring the record which was transmitted to the record room pursuant to such order of dismissal for the purpose of hearing the counter claim. The said

application is still pending before the Court. Hence this revisional application has been filed.

8.

Therefore, from the above facts and circumstances it goes without saying that the learned Trial court miserably failed to peruse the record before passing the dismissal order of the suit filed by the tenant/respondent and further failed to apply judicial mind to consider that the counter claim filed by the petitioner for eviction of tenant was still pending under Peremptory hearing and the said proceeding would continue despite the suit filed by the respondent No. 1 is dismissed. The learned Judge failed to consider Order VII Rule 6A (2) which reads as ;

2)Counter claim shall have the same effect as a cross suit so to enable the court to pronounce a final judgement in the same suit ,both on the original claim and on counter claim. 9.

Therefore, the learned trial Court is directed to dispose of the application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure along with application under Section 14 (2) Andaman and Nicobar Islands Rent Control Regulation on the date so fixed by the learned Court or by fixing an early date and also to proceed with the counter claim as expeditiously as possible without granting any unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties after following the required formalities.

10.

It is pertinent to mention that the order is passed without issuing any notice to the respondent considering the peculiar facts and circumstances without entering into the merit of the case and hence any allegations levelled against the respondents are deemed to be not admitted.

11.

In view of the above this civil revisional application stands disposed.

12.

Parties are directed to act on the serve copy of this order to be downloaded from the official website of this Court. (Chaitali Chatterjee (Das), J.)