SANJIB BANERJEE, J.

The principal relief claimed in the suit is for a declaration that the plaintiff is the absolute owner of premises no. 82B, Rafi Ahmed Kidwai Road, Calcutta – 700 013. The second relief is directed against the Kolkata Municipal Corporation in that it seeks a declaration that the mutation or separation in respect of the said premises, as reflected in the Corporation records, is unlawful and null and void. The third relief claimed is for a declaration that any order issued by the controller under the Calcutta Thika and other Tenancies and Lands (Acquisition and Regulation) Act, 1981 in respect of the said premises is illegal and void. About the time that the suit was instituted the plaintiff applied for interlocutory reliefs by way of GA No. 298 of 1999. There is an order of status quo relating to the mutation that is subsisting. The third defendant applied within months of the suit being filed for rejection of the plaint on the ground that the suit was barred by the provisions of the said Thika Tenancy Act of 1981.

Such petition, GA No. 1989 of 1999, had been relegated to the backburner along with the plaintiff’s principal interlocutory petition for nearly a decade. The parties say that there is a direction in GA No. 1989 of 1999 that the suit be not transferred to the list of undefended suits. After nearly a decade of the institution of the suit, the plaintiff plotted her next move by way of an application under Section 340 of the Criminal Procedure Code in GA No. 1881 of 2007. The third defendant woke up with a jolt upon being presented with an accusation of perjury. He engaged another set of advocates and filed afresh for rejection of the plaint or dismissal of the suit with two additional grounds added to the original challenge canvassed in the first demurer application. In GA No. 1388 of 2008, the third defendant claims that this Court had no pecuniary jurisdiction to receive the action and that since no writ of summons had been served for nine years the suit is otherwise liable to be dismissed.

There is a further point urged by the third defendant. He says that if a copy of the plaint relating to the suit had at all been served on him at the initial stage it was misplaced but the copy of the plaint served in the year 2008 did not tally with the plaint filed in court in a material part thereof. The third defendant states that he was constrained to invoke the provisions of the Right to Information Act, 2005 to obtain details relating to the plaint since the department refused to supply a certified copy thereof on the ground that the plaintiff had taken no steps for lodgment of the writ of summons. The third defendant refers to the information furnished on April 10, 2008 by the Assistant Master and Referee as the Public Information Officer of this Court under the said Act of 2005. The letter enlightens the plaintiff on the following counts:

“1.. The Plaint was presented before the Hon’ble Justice Sujit Kumar Sinha on 21st January 1999.

“2.. The Plaint was admitted subject to scrutiny by the department. Leave granted under Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Code.

“3.. The Plaint was presented with deficit court fee and M.S. Tiwari, Advocate was appointed as Receiver for the purpose of put in the deficit court fee by 27th January 1999 in default the suit shall stand dismissed. At the time of presentation of the Plaint court fee of Rs.9/- was paid.

“4.. Deficit court fee of Rs.42.75p. was paid on 25th January 1999.

“5.. The plaintiff for the purpose of jurisdiction has valued the suit at more than Rs.10 lac. In paragraph 21 of the Plaint the plaintiff has stated that since the suit is for declaration a fix court fees of Rs.20/- has been paid. For the purpose of injunction suit is valued at Rs.200/-.

“6.. The plaintiff has given the address of the defendant No. 3 as of 82B, Rafi Ahmed Kidwai Road, Kolkata – 700 013.”

The third defendant insinuates that there was a motive to the erroneous plain