IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

CIVIL REVISIONAL JURISDICTION

APPELLATE SIDE

Present:-

HON’BLE JUSTICE CHAITALI CHATTERJEE DAS.

CO 2000 OF 2024

KAWALJIT SINGH JOHAR

VS

GIRISH KUMAR MISHRA & ORS.

For the Petitioners : Mr. Sounak Bhattacharya, Adv.

Mr. Sounak Mondal, Adv.

For the Opposite

Party No. 1 : Mr. Kushal Chatterjee, Adv.

Mr. Manish Shukla, Adv.

Mr. Oishik Chatterjee, Adv.

Ms. Ivi Banerjee

Ms. Dipa Singhal, Adv.

Last heard on : 19.08.2025 Judgement on : 29.08.2025

CHAITALI CHATTERJEE DAS, J. :-

1. This revisional application is directed against an Order dated October 3, 2023

and Order dated 10.5.2024 passed by the learned judge 11th bench, City Civil Court at Calcutta in title suit No 455 of 2018. The case of the petitioner in a nutshell is that the Opposite Party No1 here in filed a suit for declaration against the present petitioner/defendant that he is entitled to use, enjoy and occupy the Office space at shop room number 9 in the ground floor of premises

number 2A, Ganesh Chandra Avenue, Kolkata – 70013, without any interference from the defendant and also prayed for a decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendant from alienating, transferring and disposing the said showroom to 3rd parties. In connection with the said suit, the plaintiff also filed an application under Order 39 Rule 1 & amp; 2 read with section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

2. The case of the present petitioner being the defendant in the above mentioned suit is case that the plaintiffs were directed to put in requisites for service of summons by May 8, 2018, by virtue of an order dated April 12, 2018. The opposite party No1 moved an application on April 20, 2018 when it was detected that the defendant No.1 & 6 in the suit had filed a caveat before filing of the said suit, and as such they were required to be heard before passing the interim order. Accordingly, the direction was given to the defendant no.1 & amd 6 to file written objection to the said injunction application in the meantime. Subsequently on May 8, 2018, the present petitioner along with defendant no. 1 & 6 upon receipt of the copy of the injunction application had appeared in the said suit and filed written objection to the injunction application.

3. The Learned Court by an order dated August 27, 2019 recorded that the postal track report filed before the court by the present opposite party no.1 did not reflect whether summons have been served upon the defendant number 3,4 and 5 and again by an order dated December 11, 2019, directed the opposite party no.1 to take necessary steps to serve summons upon the defendant no. 3,4 & 5 through court bailiff which was not complied by the plaintiff . The Nazir of the concerned Court filed the report before the learned trial court on March 5, 2020 disclosing that the defendant no.3,4 & 5 have not been served. On 30.11.2022, the Learned Trial Judge directed the Opposite Party no.2 here in to publish the summons in a daily newspaper circulating in the locality of defendant Numbers 3, 4 & 5 and further to file the draft publication on January 19, 2023. Accordingly that said notice was published in the newspaper Aajkal on February 22, 2023.

4. It is the case of the petitioner that all of a sudden without recording any reason the Learned Court by an order dated October 3, 2023 observed that the suit shall proceed ex-parte against all the defendant since the written statement was not filed. Immediately after that, the petitioner with the defendant no.1 & 6 jointly filed the application for recalling the order and to take out the suit from the ex-parte board and to direct the plaintiff to take steps for service of summons upon the defendant. Accordingly, an application for recalling was taken up for consideration and on May 10, 2024 the learned trial court rejected the said application holding that the defendant no.1 & 6 lodged caveat in connection with the suit, and accordingly, they entered appearance in the suit and the paper publication of the summons was