Court No. 6 (265719) 03.07.2026 (AD 25) (S. Banerjee) CO 2111 of 2026 Suneepa Mondal @ Suneepa Chakravarty Vs. M/s. G. G. Developers & Ors. Mr. Rahul Karmakar Mr. Soumajit Majumder Ms. Shyantee Datta Ms. Samita Chowdhury …for the petitioner Ms. Hashnuhana Chakraborty Mr. Vinay Kumar Purohit …for the opposite-party nos. 1 to 5 This application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is at the instance of the defendants in Title Suit No. 1610 of 2025 challenging the order dated May 13, 2026 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), 8th Court at Alipore. By the said order two applications, one under Section 10 of the Civil Procedure Code and the other under Sections 7(1) and 7(2) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997, stood rejected. Mr. Karmakar, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is aggrieved only by the portion of the order rejecting the application under Section 10 of the Civil Procedure Code. The petitioner along with one Abhishek Chakrabarty filed Title Suit No. 1623 of 2025 before 2 the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division), 3rd Court at Alipore praying for declaration of tenancy right and permanent injunction restraining the opposite-parties from interfering with the peaceful possession of the petitioner in respect of the said property. The opposite-parties as plaintiffs filed TS No. 1610 of 2025 before the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division), 8th Court at Alipore praying for a decree for recovery of vacant and khas possession by evicting the petitioner from the suit property. It is not in dispute that the suit filed by the petitioner is prior in point of time to the suit filed by the opposite-parties herein. The petitioner applied under Section 10 of the Civil Procedure Code for stay of the subsequent suit filed by the opposite-parties on the ground that the issues involved in the subsequent suit, is more or less identical with the issues raised in the prior suit. Mr. Karmakar submits that the parties of both the suits are same, the suit property is also same and identical. He submits that since the issues are also same, the subsequent suit should be stayed in the light of the provisions contained under Section 10 of the Civil Procedure Code. Learned advocate appearing for the opposite parties seriously disputes the submission of Mr. 3 Karmakar. She submits that the issues of both the suits are not same. Though the petitioner herein has filed a written statement in the suit filed by the opposite-parties, the opposite-parties are unable to file written statement in the suit filed by the petitioner as the petitioner, in spite of an application filed by the opposite-parties, has not given inspection of the documents which the petitioner has relied upon in the plaint. She submits that the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division) where the suit filed by the opposite- parties is pending, do not have jurisdiction to decide the suit filed by the petitioner herein. She thus submits that the learned trial judge was right in rejecting the application under Section 10 of the Civil Procedure Code. Heard the learned advocates for both the parties and perused the materials placed. After going through the plaint of both the suits which have been annexed to this civil revision application, this Court finds that parties of the both the suits are more or less same, the suit property is also more or less identical. The issues in the suit filed by the petitioner are yet to be framed. The written statement in the suit filed by the petitioner has not been filed by the opposite-parties. However, both the suits can be said to be more or less at the same stage 4 as in neither of the aforesaid suits the issues have been framed nor the evidence has started. After going through the scope of both the suits, this Court is of the considered view that identical question of fact and law may arise in both the suits. The evidence that may be adduced by the parties in support of their cases would be common. Thus, in order to avoid complications at the stage of evidence as well as conflict of judicial decisions this Court is of the considered view that both the suits are to be consolidated. However, taking note of the fact that the suit filed by the petitioner is before the Learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division), this Court is inclined to pass a direction upon the learned District Judge to transfer Title Suit No. 1623 of 2025 presently pending before the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division), 3rd Court at Alipore to the Court of the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division), 8th Court at Alipore where Title Suit No. 1610 of 2025 is pending, for analogous hearing of both the suits. This Court also finds that the learned trial judge in the order impugned has also granted liberty to the parties to take steps for consolidation of both the suits for simultaneous trial as per law to prevent duplication of evidence and conflict of judicial decisions. CO 2111 of 2026 stands disposed of by requesting the learned District Judge, South 24 5 Parganas to transfer Title Suit No. 1623 of 2025 presently pending before the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division), 3rd Court at Alipore, to the Court of the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division), 8th Court at Alipore as expeditiously as possible but positively within a period of four weeks. After transfer of Title Suit No. 1623 of 2025, the Learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), 8th Court at Alipore shall consolidate the said suits and conduct simultaneous trial of both the suits. (Hiranmay Bhattacharyya, J.)