IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Civil Revisional Jurisdiction Appellate Side Present:

The Hon’ble Justice Biswaroop Chowdhury C.O. 698 of 2024 M/s. Child Care Aqua Fountain represented by its proprietor Smt. Sreoshi Dutta VERSUS Pradip Bhattacharjee For the petitioner: Mr. Satyan Mukherjee, Adv.

Mrs. Sayani Ahmed, Adv.

Mr. Purnendu Shekhar Ghosh, Adv.

For the opposite party Mr. Saibal Rakhit, Adv.

Mr. Susenjit Banik, Adv.

Mr. Prasanta Bishal, Adv.

Last Heard on: March 18, 2025 Judgment on: March 28, 2025 Biswaroop Chowdhury,J:

1. The petitioner before this Court is a defendant in an Eviction suit being Title Suit No-226 of 2011 before Learned 2nd Court Civil Judge Senior Division at Barasat and Appellant in the Appeal being Title Appeal No-43 of 2017 pending before Learned District Judge – North

24 Parganas preferred against decree of eviction passed by Learned 2nd Court Civil Judge Senior Division at Barasat in Title Suit No- 226/2011 and is aggrieved by Order dated 08.02.2024 passed by the Learned Appellate Court dismissing petition under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC.

2. The petitioner being aggrieved by the Order dated 08.02.2024 passed by the Learned Appellate Court has come up with the instant application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

3. The case of the petitioner in an application under Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure before Learned Appellate Court may be summed up thus;

4. The Appellant was a tenant under the Plaintiff/Respondent for just one month and took rent receipt for just one month to obtain trade license for its business as the plaintiff/respondent already entered into Sale Agreement and also handed over possession of the suit property and other properties of the Suit Holding in favour of Diana Hoare and Debaditya Hoare, the intending purchasers as well as full blooded sister and brother of Appellant.

5. The said intending purchasers filed a suit for specific performance of the Sale Agreement and possession and handing over documents executed by the Respondent herein vide Title Suit No. 24/2011 before the Same Court of Learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) at Barasat and the said suit is the earlier suit than the Suit No. T.S. 226/2011 against which the instant Appeal is filed and suit properties of the said T.S. 24 of 2011 and T.S. 226/2011 are same.

6. The present Respondent is the Sole Defendant in the said earlier suit for specific performance of Contract in T.S. 24/11 and sole plaintiff in his later suit being T.S. 226/2011 before the same Court.

7. It is admitted by the Respondent/Plaintiff herein that he filed this later suit No. T.S. 226/2011 after receiving summon of the earlier suit being No. 24/2011 in his cross examination dated 04-09-2015 in this case being T.S. 226/2011.

8. In the meantime the intending purchasers ie. sister and brother of the Appellant/Petitioner filed all their unregistered sale Agreement, possession letter and other documents in their suit being No. 24/2011 on 14-12-2012 on the date of contested injunction hearing and those were lying with the case record of that suit and for which the Appellant/Defendant could not file or produce those documents in the later suit No. 226/11 to prove her defence.

9. After impounding in proper way said unregistered documents have been marked as Exhibits in said T.S. 24/2011 without any objection before the same Learned Court and the present Appellant has succeeded to collect those exhibited documents from her sister and brother who got the same from Learned Court by replacing the certified copies.

10. The said Exhibited documents of the earlier Suit No-T.S. 24/11 is very much required to produce before the Learned Court as Additional Evidence on the part of Appellant/Defendant in disposing the Appeal otherwise the defendant/appellant will suffer irreparable loss and injury as the plaintiff cannot claim any amount as rent from Appellant after handing over the possession of the suit property in favour of the intending purchases.

11. The op