Court No. 6 (265719) 29.06.2026 (AD 11) (S. Banerjee) CO 1993 of 2026 Dhruv Sahni Vs. Kaushalya Rani Charity Trust Mr. Siddhartha Lahiri Mr. Debraj Dutta …for the petitioner Mr. Supriya Chattopadhyay Ms. Deborsri Chatterjee …for the opposite party The order being no. 110 dated June 15, 2026 is under challenge in this application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India at the instance of plaintiff in a suit for declaration of tenancy right being Title Suit No. 2853 of 2007. Mr. Lahiri, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner, submits that two suits, one filed by the petitioner praying for a declaration of tenancy right and the other by the opposite party praying for eviction of the petitioner from the suit property is pending before the self-same court. He further submits that since the parties of both the suits are same; the suit property is also same and both the suits are more or less at the same stage, the learned Judge ought to have directed analogous hearing of both the suits. 2 Per contra, learned advocate appearing for the opposite party submits that the suit for eviction filed by the opposite-party herein has reached the stage of evidence. An order was passed on an earlier occasion on an application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to dispose of the suit being TS No. 5121 of 2008 expeditiously. He further submits that the PW-1 has expired after leading evidence and the evidence of the PW-2 in TS No. 5121 of 2008 has already started and today (29.06.2026) is the date fixed for cross-examination of PW-2 by the petitioner herein. He submits that the evidence in TS No. 2853 of 2007 has only commenced. After going through the pleadings of the respective parties, this Court finds that the defence case of the petitioner in TS No. 5121 of 2008 is the plaint case of the petitioner in TS No. 2853 of 2007. Since today is the date fixed for cross- examination of the PW-2, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the order impugned refusing analogous hearing of both the suits. As already observed that the defence of the petitioner in TS 5121 of 2008 is same and identical with the case made in the plaint of TS 2853 of 2007, the petitioner will not be prejudiced in any manner if the evidence in TS 5121 of 2008 is proceeded with. 3 With the above observation CO 1993 of 2026 stands disposed of. (Hiranmay Bhattacharyya, J.)