IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

CIVIL REVISIONAL JURISDICTION

APPELLATE SIDE

Before:

The Hon’ble Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya

C.O. 1687 of 2025

Niranjan Khanra

Vs.

Sudripta Das & Anr.

For the Petitioner : Mr. Shamit Sanyal

Ms. Sanchayita De

….. advocates

For the Opposite Party : Mr. Sanjay Mukherjee

Mr. Arghadip Das Mr. Chiranjit Pal

…advocates

Heard on : 28.07.2025 Judgment on : 24.10.2025

Hiranmay Bhattacharyya, J.:-

1. This application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is at the

instance of the defendant and is directed against an order dated April 7, 2025 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division 10th Court at

Alipore in Ejectment Suit no. 47 of 2024.

2. By the order impugned, the evidence of PW 1 stood closed and PW-1 was

discharged and a date was fixed for evidence of the defendant’s witness.

3. The opposite parties filed a suit for recovery of possession by way of eviction,

damages and mesne profits against the petitioner before the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division 10th Court at Alipore which was registered as

Ejectment Suit No. 47 of 2024. At the stage of cross examination of the plaintiff witness no. 1, the petitioner filed an application under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure being Misc. Case no. 148 of 2025 before the learned District Judge, 24 Parganas (South) at Alipore praying for transfer of the Ejectment Suit pending before the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, 10^th Court at Alipore to any other learned Court at Alipore.

4. The further cross examination of PW 1 was fixed on April 7, 2025. On that date the petitioner filed an adjournment petition on the ground that the application for transfer of the suit filed before the learned District Judge under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure is pending.

5. The prayer for adjournment was opposed by the plaintiffs/opposite parties and the learned Trial Judge rejected the prayer for adjournment by the impugned order. The cross examination of PW 1 also stood closed and the PW-1 was discharged and a date was fixed for the evidence of the defendant’s witness.

6. Being aggrieved by the order closing the cross examination of PW 1, the petitioner has approached this Court.

7. Mr. Sanyal learned advocate appearing for the petitioner contended that the petitioner filed an application for transfer of the suit which was pending before the learned District Judge. He further contended that since the application for transfer was pending the learned Trial Judge ought to have adjourned the cross examination of PW 1 so that the petitioner can move the application for transfer. He contended that the learned Trial Judge deprived the petitioner of a valuable right of cross examination by the impugned order.

8. Mr. Sanjay Mukherjee learned advocate appearing for the opposite party submitted that mere pendency of an application under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure cannot operate as a stay unless the Court specifically passes an order of stay. He contended that since no order of stay was passed by the learned District Judge in the Misc. Case filed for transfer of the suit, the learned Trial Judge was right in rejecting the prayer for adjournment and for closing the cross examination of PW 1.

9. Heard the learned advocates for the parties and perused the materials placed.

10. Record reveals that the PW 1 was cross examined on 05.04.2025 and the further cross examination of PW 1 was fixed on 07.04.2025. Alleging that some adverse opinion against the petitioner was expressed by the learned Trial Judge at the time of cross examination of PW 1 by the counsel of the petitioner on 05.04.2025, a Misc. Case no. 148 of 2025 was filed by the petitioner before the learned District Judge at Alipore praying for transfer of the Ejectment Suit no. 47 of 2024 pending before the learned Civil Judge Senior Division 10^th Court at Alipore to any other learned Court at Alipore.

11. It is not in dispute that the copy of the information slip issued by the Court of learned District Judge at