Ct. No.446 M/L Saikat 15 01.09.2025 CO/1250/2024 with IA NO: CAN/1/2025 M/S. DYNAMIC INTERNATIONAL VS. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. Mr. Indrajit Biswas, Adv. Mr. Rakesh Kr. Pandey, Adv. …For the Petitioner Mr. Uday Shankar Bhattacharya, Adv. Mr. Sujit Mitra, Adv. ...For the Opposite Parties In Re: IA No.CAN 1 of 2025 1. The instant application for recalling of the order dated 11th June, 2025, passed by this Bench whereby this revisional application was dismissed for default as no one represented the petitioner. 2. It is submitted that due to unavoidable circumstances the learned advocate representing the petitioner was not in a position to represent the petitioner before this Court on that day. However, there was no intentional laches on behalf of the petitioner and accordingly prays for restoration. 3. Mr. Bhattacharya, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the opposite party Nos.1 and 2 raises strong objection. 4. However, considering the facts and circumstances and being satisfied with the reason cited in the application, this Court is inclined to allow the instant application and the order dated 11th June, 2025, 2 passed by this Bench is hereby recalled. Accordingly, the instant application is restored to its original file and number. 5. Hence, CAN 1 of 2025 is disposed of. In Re: CO 1250 of 2024 6. Supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioner is taken on record. 7. This revisional application is taken up for hearing. This proceeding is directed against an order dated 16th June, 2023, passed by the learned Additional District Judge, 6th Court, Paschim Medinipur in Misc. Appeal No.05 of 2023 as well as the order dated 3rd January, 2023 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), 2nd Court, Paschim Midnapore in O.S. No.151/2014 whereby the learned court allowed the application filed by the opposite party affirming the order dated 3rd January, 2023. 8. The fact of the case of the petitioner in a nutshell is that by virtue of 5 agreements executed between the petitioner and the President of India acting through senior Divisional Commercial manager South Eastern Railway ,Kharagpur the petitioner/plaintiff paid rent of Rs 5,51,046 /- for 21 years but the Railways tried to oust them from the Kharagpur Railway station on the plea of handing over the same to I.R.C.T,C .The plaintiff invested huge money and they are suffering from acute financial losses due to unnecessary 3 interference by the railway authorities .Accordingly the petitioner filed a suit along with an application under order 39 rule 1 & 2 but the prayer for temporary injunction was rejected by the learned court of civil judge junior division against which an appeal was preferred but the learned appellate court also reject the appeal and affirmed the order of the trial court . 9. The primary point has been raised by the opposite party, Union of India regarding maintainability of this proceeding since the petitioner was neither a party to the suit filed in the court below nor in the appeal filed before the First Appellate Court. Hence prayed for dismissal of this revisional application. 10. The record reveals that that one K.R. Srinivas was the sole proprietor in the name and style of Dynamic International business for supply and sale of fast food, Chinese, South Indian and various food items through department ,catering staffs and trollies on re-sale basis at the platform of Kharagpur Railway Station under South Eastern Railway prior to 2001. The petitioner M/s. Dynamic International was running through K. Shankari the sole proprietor son of K. Appa Rao, residing at Bolck No.L/38-A1, Unit No.14, near Andra School, New Settlement VTC Kharagpur, District-Paschim Medinipur, State-West Bengal but the instant petition has been filed by the petitioner posing himself as the sole proprietor in 4 place of K.Shankari as acting through K.R Shankari but no document is filed to substantiate that. 11. So the contention of the learned advocate representing the opposite party that the M/s. Dynamic International represented by K. Shankari for the first time has come before this Court and this fact was never placed before the trial court or before the First Appellate Court. The learned advocate appearing for the petitioner has admitted the fact K. R. Srinivasis the sole proprietor but at present represented by K. Shankari since K.Srinivas is not well but change of sole proprietor usually involves changing the legal structure of the business and that needs to follow a lot of procedure .That apart the said change of name is to be intimated to the learned trial court and such name is to be replaced by the court on consideration of all the materials. The learned advocate representing the petitioner fails to substantiate such fact and hence the person claiming to be the proprietor is a third party and no way connected with this proceeding. 12. Therefore, prima facie this revisional application cannot be said to be maintainable on that score since M/s. Dynamic International was never represented before the trial court by this petitioner as proprietor. 13. In view of the above, this Court finds no reason to interfere with the matter on merits and accordingly dismissed this revisional application on the ground of maintainability only. 5 14. The petitioner is given liberty to take appropriate steps regarding incorporation of his name as the proprietor M/s. Dynamic International in place of K. Shankari by placing proper document before the trial court the trial court. 15. Hence this revisional application is dismissed being not maintainable. 16. No order of costs. 17. Urgent photostat copy of the order be supplied to the parties if applied for after compliance of all requisite formalities. [Chaitali Chatterjee (Das), J.]