CO/4140/2025 of RAJASHREE RAY Vs PARTHA SARATHI RAY on 21 September 2026

1. An order of the learned Judge, Bench VII, City Civil Court, Calcutta dated 22nd September, 2025 is challenged in this instant revision. The grievance of the petitioner is that though no plaint was served upon the petitioner, who is the defendant no.1, in the suit before the learned trial Court and the photo copy of the first page of the amended plaint shows signature of some outsider who is neither the counsel of the defendant no.1 before the trial nor the clerk of the learned Counsel of the defendant no.1/petitioner, the Court has proceeded to fix the suit for ex parte hearing, considering that the defendant was not willing to present any defence as the defendant had not filed any written statement before the Court.

2. Mrs. Bhattacharyya, learned Advocate appears for the petitioner, she has argued that the defendant no.1 appeared before the Court by virtue of information given by some other persons regarding the suit being filed against him. Immediately the defendant no.1 filed an application dated 28th February, 2025 seeking service of plaint to him. It is alleged that on the date of hearing of the said application i.e. on 22nd September, 2025 the Court without considering the said application, in its proper prospective, has proceeded on the basis of the endorsement on the amended plaint which indicates about the due service of the same upon the defendant no.1 i.e. the present petitioner. The Court also noted that the defendant has not come up with any prayer for leave to file written statement. That, for all these reasons, the Court has considered that time limit for filing written statement has elapsed and fixed the suit of ex parte hearing.

3. Mrs. Bhattacharyya, learned Advocate for the petitioner, has submitted that neither the plaint nor the amended plaint has been served upon the defendant no.1/petitioner.

4. Mr. Ghosh, learned Senior Advocate for the opposite party has raised strong objection as to the contention and prayer of the petitioner, for the reasons that on the date of the impugned order, the defendant no. 1 had never come before the Court with any similar prayer, as he has made before this Court in the instant revision.

5. Having heard both the learned Advocates for the respective parties and having perused the documents on record, the Court finds its proper to direct the petitioner to file his grievance and prayer afresh through separate application, before the learned Trial Court. Let the Trial Court consider the same in presence of both the parties and pass an order as it thinks fit and proper.

6. In such event, the impugned order dated 22nd September, 2025 in Title Suit No. 1662 of 2021 shall stand as set aside.

7. The learned Trial Court is requested to proceed as expeditiously as possible to dispose of such application, when filed by the present petitioner, within a reasonable period of time from the date of filing of such application and only after hearing both the parties, before disposing of the same. With the direction as above, the instant revisional application is hereby disposed of.

8. No order as to costs.

9. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance with all requisite formalities.

<

(Rai Chattopadhyay, J.)