C o u r t N . 2 2 S l 1 5 1 / C L 07.08.26 D/L Sl-38 Ct. 07 (Samar) CO 31 of 2026 Anupam Mahalanobish Vs. Sayak Sengupta & Ors. Mr. Sounak Bhattacharya, Mr. Sounak Mondal, ….for the petitioner. Mr. Dwaipayan Banerjee, Mr. A. Ghosh, ….for the respondent. 1. This revisional application is directed against an order dated August 02, 2025 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), 5th Court, Alipore in the Money Suit No. 54 of 2023 whereby the petitioner’s application under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 praying for striking out the petitioner’s name from the array of defendants in the suit has been rejected. 2. The opposite parties have instituted Money Suit No. 54 of 2023 against the petitioner and the pro-forma opposite party no. 4 praying inter alia for decree of recovery of money and injunction. 3. In the said suit, the petitioner filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of the Code seeking striking out of the petitioner’s name from the array of defendants while contending that upon a plain reading of the plaint as also the documents annexed thereto, it would be evident that the alleged transactions had taken place between the plaintiffs and one Elegant Tours whereof, the 2 defendant no. 1 i.e. the pro-forma opposite party no. 4 is the sole proprietor. The petitioner asserted that the petitioner has no nexus with or interest in the said Elegant Tours in any manner whatsoever. 4. Mr. Bhattacharya, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has produced certificate of enlistment cum e-receipt from the Kolkata Municipal Corporation to demonstrate that the pro-forma opposite party no. 4 is the proprietor of the said firm. He further submits that a property tax receipt evincing the same was also produced before the learned Trial Court, however, the learned Trial Court has not taken the same into consideration and rejected the petitioner’s application seeking striking out the petitioner’s name from the array of defendants. 5. Mr. Bhattacharya, further submits that from the chart appended to paragraph 4 of the plaint also, it would be evident that all the monetary transfers have been effected in the account of the defendant no. 1 only and that the defendant no. 2 (i.e. the petitioner herein) has no connection with the same. 6. Mr. Banerjee, learned advocate appearing for the plaintiffs-opposite party nos. 1 and 2 submits that the petitioner has been instrumental in the monetary transactions that took place between the plaintiffs and the firm. It is further submitted that the plaint case itself would reveal that both the 3 defendants in the suit (i.e the petitioner and the pro-forma respondent no. 4) have availed of financial assistance from the plaintiff without providing any security. 7. It is further submitted that under the cover of a list of documents (firiste) several documents were produced before the learned Trial Court to show that there have been transactions between the plaintiffs and both the defendants. 8. Heard learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and considered the material on record. 9. The plaintiffs have described the defendant no. 1 i.e. the pro-form respondent no. 4 in the suit as “wife of Anupam Mahalanobish, the proprietor of M/s. Elegan Tours” and have described the petitioner as “Anupam Mahalanobish, the proprietor of M/s. Elegan Tours”. The cause title apparently reveals that the plaintiff has filed the suit treating Sri Anupam Mahalanobish as the proprietor of M/s. Elegan Tours. 10. It is the specific case of the plaintiff in paragraph 3 of the plaint that the that both the defendants approached the plaintiff and they beseeched “the plaintiffs to extend their good hands of cooperation to provide them financial assistance to the tune of Rs. 40,00,000/- (Rupees Forty lakh) only to facilitate them to commence a food and lodging business”. 4 This allegation indicates that both the defendants approached the plaintiffs for financial accommodation. Furthermore, the statements made in paragraph 6 of the plaint indicate that the plaintiffs contacted the defendants (and not the defendant no. 1 only) and requested them to refund the amount paid by the plaintiff. 11. Paragraph 7 alleges that the “defendants jointly and severally availed of the hard earning money of the plaintiffs without any security whatsoever”. 12. Moreover, the list of documents mentioned in the pliant (at page 21 of the revisional application) indicates that prior to filing the suit a legal notice dated July 28, 2021 had been issued by the plaintiffs which was replied to by the learned Advocate on behalf of both the defendants i.e. the petitioner as well as the proforma opposite party no.4 herein. 13. Thus the plaint case voices the plaintiffs’ grievances against both the defendants. Therefore, at this stage, it is difficult to hold that there is no allegation in the plaint at all against the petitioner who is the defendant No. 2 in the suit. As to whether the defendant no. 1 is the proprietor of M/s. Elegan Tours or defendant no. 2 the proprietor thereof would ultimately require evidence to be adduced. 14. Mr. Bhattacharya’s submissions based on 5 Enlistment Certificate, Municipal Tax Receipts and online transaction chart are all in the zone of evidential consideration. While it is true that the Court has power to strike out a party from the array of parties in a suit, under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code, but such decision must be based on wholesome analysis of the material on record. It would have been a different matter altogether if the plaint case was completely silent as regards the petitioner. 15. In the case at hand, the learned Trial Court has not decided the issue as yet but has only postponed its decision thereon holding that the same as a triable issue. The Court has held “that expunging defendant no. 2 from the proceedings of this suit would tantamount to deciding disputed question of fact prematurely, which ought to be decided/adjudicated upon full trial”. 16. This Court does not find any error in such decision. On the contrary if the learned Trial Court had struck out the name of the defendant no. 2 in the suit (i.e. the petitioner herein) that would in a sense be like deciding that the said defendant is not liable to pay any sum to the plaintiff as alleged. Such course would not have been proper at this stage since, the question as to whether the defendant no. 2 would be liable to pay any sum to the plaintiff or not would definitely be tried as an issue in the suit, 6 which will be adjudicated on the basis of the evidence adduced by the parties. The view taken by the learned Trial Court is therefore not an impossible or an implausible one. 17. For all the reasons aforesaid, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the decision taken by the learned Trial Court. 18. With the above observation, CO 31 of 2026 stands disposed of. There shall be no order as to Costs. 19. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties subject to compliance with all requisite formalities. (Om Narayan Rai, J.)