Judgment:
ORDER
SHEET APO NO.387 OF 199.WITH C.S.No.210 OF 199.IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SUGAN CHAND GHARAWAT & ORS.-VSBRIGHT STEEL CORPORATION BEFORE THE HON’BLE JUSTICE BANERJEE AND THE HON’BLE JUSTICE MRINAL KANTI SINHA DATED :
30. h April, 2013 Mr.Kashi Nath De, Mr.Bhaskar Mukherjee, Ms.Debjani Ghosh for the appellants.
Mr.Ashesh Bhattacharyya, Ms.Pratima Mishra for the respondent.
THE COURT : Marshall Sons & Co.(India) Limited was having a long term lease in respect of the premises in question being premises no.33/1, Netaji Subhas Road, Calcutta.
Marshall gave it to Mahabir Properties Private Limited with permission to construct.
Accordingly, a multistoried complex was constructed by Mahabir, named as Marshall House.
The subject matter of dispute would relate to a shop room and/or office room being no.701.
According to Marshall and Mahabir, the same was assigned to Bright Steel Corporation.
The lease was executed in favour of Bright Steel Corporation.
The shop room was however under the possession of one Ghorawat and Jain.
Ghorawat claimed, Bright Steel took money from him which they could not repay, as a result they handed over possession of the shop room that Ghorawat gave it to Jain.
Jain is in occupation.
Ghorawat and Jain filed a suit before the City Civil Court being Title Suit No.1550 of 1989 inter alia claiming, they are the lawful tenants in respect of the shop room in question and the perpetual injunction should be passed as against the Bright Steel and otheRs.The Bright Steel filed a suit for eviction of Ghorawat and Jain in this Court.
Bright’s suit being Suit No.210 of 1994 is later in time.
Ghorawat and Jain filed an application under Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure inter alia praying for stay of the High Court suit.
The learned Single Judge by judgment and order dated July 31, 1997 dismissed the said application.
His Lordship was pleased to observe, there requirement of might be Section 10 overlapping was issues.
conspicuously However, absent the as the issues are not substantially the same.
Hence this appeal by Ghorawat and Jain.
We have heard Mr.Kashi Nath De, learned Counsel appearing for the appellants and Mr.Ashesh Kumar Bhattacharyya, learned Counsel appearing for the Bright Steel Corporation.
Mr.De would contend, in case the City Civil Court suit is heard after the High Court suit, the High Court judgment would have a dominant role on the result of the City Civil Court suit.
There might be conflict of decisions too.
While we cannot brush aside the argument of Mr.De, looking at the averments in both the plaint, we are of the view, the learned Judge was perhaps correct to say, the issues are not substantially the same.
We feel, interest of justice would subserve, if both the suits be heard analogously and disposed of by one forum.
Let the City Civil Court suit being Title Suit No.1550 of 1989 be transferred to this Court and be heard along with Suit No.210 of 1994.
We are told, the parties have filed their respective written statement.
However, the written statement filed in Suit No.210 of 1994 is yet to be accepted.
The written statement filed in Suit No.210 of 1994 be accepted.
The parties are at liberty to exchange their documents, if not disclosed earlier within a period of two weeks from date.
We are told, the City Civil Court suit would have other defendants being Marshall and Mahabir.
They are formal parties.
However, a copy of this order be communicated to them.
We abundantly make it clear, we have not gone into the merits of the appeal and the parties would be at liberty to place their respective version at the time of final hearing of the suits.
The appeal is disposed of without any order as to costs.
( BANERJEE, J.) ( MRINAL KANTI SINHA, J.)