Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Cal) 3871
CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
CHAITALI CHATTERJEE DAS, J
THE UNION BANK OF INDIA – Appellant
Versus
NARENDRA MANSATA & ORS. – Respondent
CIVIL REVISIONAL JURISDICTION CO 3717 OF 2024
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. Dipanjan Datta, Adv., Mr. Subhajit Chowdhury, Adv.
For the Respondents: Mr. Suvadeep Sen, Adv.
The court cannot revisit an order accepting a written statement without valid reasons, especially after the case has progressed.
Headnote:(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Section 151 - Revisional application against an order allowing recall of written statement - Delay in filing written statement not properly justified - The court held that once the order accepting the written statement is made, the decision should not be revisited without valid grounds for reopening it. (Paras 1, 15, 16)
(B) Delay in legal proceedings - Long delay to file written statement raised concerns in the lower court - Court emphasized the need for proper justification when seeking to deviate from statutory time limits. (Paras 10, 12)
Facts of the case:
The suit was initiated for recovery of possession against the bank for alleged non-payment of rent and substantial delay in filing written statement was a key issue.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the procedure followed by the trial court to deny accepting the written statement after previously doing so was flawed and not justified.
Issues: Key issues involved were the acceptance of the written statement after an inordinate delay and the justification for the court's order allowing its recall.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the trial court cannot revisit a discretionary order without reason once the case has advanced; justification for the previous acceptance of documents must be maintained unless exceptional circumstances arise.
Result: The revisional application stands allowed and the order denying the acceptance of the written statement is set aside.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. application under section 151 was the basis of the case. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. request for recalling order due to delays in filing. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. delay in filing the written statement needs proper justification. (Para 6) |
| 4. parties' arguments on justification of delays discussed. (Para 8 , 9) |
| 5. court's discretion to accept late filings addressed. (Para 10 , 12) |
| 6. final order to expedite case resolution was issued. (Para 13 , 15 , 16) |
Last heard on : 14.07.2025 Judgement on : 18.07.2025 CHAITALI CHATTERJEE DAS, J. :-
1. This revisional application is directed against an order dated 20 August 2024 passed by the learned Judge Bench XII, City Civil Court at Calcutta in Title Suit number 986 of 2020, whereby the application filed under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure filed by the plaintiff has been allowed and the written statement filed by the present petitioner being the defendant which was accepted earlier has been rejected.
Heard the submission of both the learned advocates.
2. The case of the petitioner /Bank is that a title suit was originally filed by the Opposite Parties/defendant number 1 to 12 being the landlords of the suit building along with one late Kiran Dhiren Kopart who expired on August 13, 2009 for recovery of khas possession with damages and mesne profits. The proforma Opposite Parties/defendant number 13 and 14 did not join as plaintiffs but they were made parties to the suit for proper adjudication of the issues involved with no relief claimed against them. The parties entered into a lease agreement on May 9, 2006 in respect of the suit premises being the branch address of the petitioner Bank and the said agreement was expired on 31 August 2019. The petitioner bank was always ready to execute a fresh lease deed and to pay the rent at the old rate, which has already enhanced substantially from time to time during the subsistence of the earlier deed of lease, and in terms of which lastly, paid rent aggregated to ₹1, 14, 998, which is claimed as an enhanced rate of ₹1, 81, 600 by the opposite party. The petitioner entered appearance in the suit and prayed time to file written statement which was allowed on 15.2.23 directing the bank to file the written statement on 9.8.23.
3. The Opposite Parties/defendants moved an application under Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure before the Learned Trial Court to recall its order passed on 15.2.2023, whereby the petitioner was allowed to file the written statement on 9.8.23. Thereafter, the bank petitioner filed their written objection to the said application and on 17.7.2023, the said petition under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure was taken up for hearing by the learned court and after considering the submission, the learned court was pleased to accept both the written statement as well as the written objection and fixed 9.10.23 for framing of issues.
4. On 21.5.2024, the application under order 21, rule 10, read with Section 151 of CPC filed by one M/s Baikuntha enterprises was served upon the learned advocate of the petitioner bank seeking substitution in place and instead of the original opposite parties/original plaintiff on the ground that a deed of lease dated 1stJuly 2022, in respect of the suit property that is branch bank premises has been executed between the present opposite parties figuring as lessors and lessee.
5. On August 20, 2024, the learned Court again heard the application for recall under Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure filed by the plaintiffs along with the written objection of the bank in terms of the direction of the Hon’ble court dated 15/5/23 passed in CO number 1471 of 2023 and observed that inordinate delay caused in filing the written statement by the petitioner/ bank could not be explained properly and hence the petition for recall was allowed on contest fixing January 3, 2025 for ex-parte hearing of the suit.
6. The case of the opposite party on the other hand is that the petitioner/ bank was
