IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CIVIL REVISIONAL JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE Present:-

HON’BLE JUSTICE CHAITALI CHATTERJEE DAS.

CO 1135 OF 2014 M/S. WILMAN ASSOCIATES INDIA PVT. LTD. & ANR.

VS SUSANTA ROY KAYAL AND ORS.

For the Petitioners : Mr. Sounak Sengupta, Adv.

Mr. Arnab Dutt, Adv.

Mrs. Labani Dey, Adv.

For the Respondents : Mr. N.G. Sarkar, Adv.

Mr. Dev Ranjan Das, Adv.

Mr. Partha Mukherjee, Adv.

Mr. Sujan Roy, Adv.

Last heard on : 24.07.2025 Judgement on : 09.09.2025 CHAITALI CHATTERJEE DAS, J. :-

1. This application under Article 227 of the constitution of India has been filed against an order dated January2^nd, 2014 passed by the Learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, 6^th Court at Alipore in Tittle suit no 26 of 2007 whereby the petition filed under order 7 Rule 11 CPC was rejected on contest.

2. Shorn of any details the case of the petitioner is as follows:-

a) Original suit being title suit No. 26 of 2007 was filed by the plaintiffs/Opposite Party no 1 ,2, and 3 against the defendant Opposite Party No. 4 and 5 for declaration and injunction describing themselves as Bargadars on the suit land. The said suit was withdrawn by the plaintiff themselves and the Learned Court by order No. 19 dated January14, 2008 recorded the grounds of dismissal of the suit stating that the disputes have been settled between the parties out of Court, hence the suit be and the same is dismissed for non-prosecution as prayed for.

b) The petitioner No. 1 Company purchased the suit property by virtue of two registered deeds of conveyance both dated 12^th May, 2008 and at the said material point of time the suit was not there and was withdrawn. Prior to purchase the petitioner No. 1 delivered vacant possession of the said land on October 31, 2007 accordingly to possession certificates were also given to him which he has annexed with the present petition. After such purchase the Opposite Party Nos 1 to 3 /plaintiffs started claiming that they are the Bargadars in respect of a portion of the purchase land of the petitioners being the suit land herein . Accordingly a proceeding started before the Learned Land Tribunal under case No. OA 1039/2011 (LRTT) and obtain an order whereby directed the B.L. and L.R.O to dispose of the pending case within two months. By virtue of a final order said B.L and L.R.O held that recording of Bargadars being wrong and thereby struck of and corrected the names of the plaintiffs from the record of rights and also the said land was mutated in the name of the petitioner No. 1 as the owner in respect of entire Dag by putting new L.R Khatian No. as 2547.

c) The petitioner received summons of the suit which transpire that O.P. No 1 to 3/plaintiffs surreptitiously in collusion with the original defendant restored the suit which was dismissed ex-parte and included the petitioner as defendant No 3 and 4 therein and accordingly sent such summons. The plaintiffs claimed in the suit that they are the recorded Bargadar in respect of suit land is there father being “Bhagchasi” where in possession of the suit land started to cultivate from 1376 .B.S. and used to deliver usufruct to the original owner Ram Samanta, Krishna Kali Smanata, Kali Samanmta , Sasanka Samanta but did not hold any Bargas certificate. Accordingly the plaintiffs claimed decree for declaration that the plaintiffs have every right to cultivate the suit land without any interference of the defendants as recorded Bargadars and also a decree for injunction against the defendants not to disturb the plaintiffs possession at the time of cultivation or harvesting.

d) Immediately on receiving the summons the petitioner entered appearance and filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure for rejection of the plaint on the ground that the dispute relates to “Bhagchasi” and “Barga” and the Court has no jurisdiction to try such dispute. Further point taken on the ground of mis-joinder and non-joinder of parties the suit is not maintainable and also is bad by the prin