PROBODH CHOWBEY AND ANR v. RAM SEVAK CHOWBEY AND ORS
CO/1733/2026 · 2026-09-08
Hiranmay Bhattacharyya
body2026
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 39739 (CAL) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 39739 (CAL) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
A.638 08.09.2026 Court No.6 BP C.O. 1733 of 2026
Sri Probodh Chowbey & Anr. -versus- Ram Sevak Chowbey & Ors.
Mr. Sukumar Bhattacharyya Ms. Subhangi Bhattacharya ..for the petitioners
Ms. Madhumita Patra Mr. P. Das ..for the opposite party no.1
This application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is at the instance of the defendant nos. 4 and 7 and is directed against an order dated 17th April, 2026 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Additional Court at Chinsurah in Title Suit No. 127 of 2013. By the order impugned the application filed by the petitioners challenging the maintainability of the suit stood rejected. Mr. Bhattacharyya, learned advocate appearing for the petitioners submits that an amended plaint has been filed without any application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure being filed and allowed. He further submits that the learned trial judge is not hearing two suits analogously in spite of an order passed by a Co- ordinate Bench in C.O. 1223 of 2019 on 23rd September,
2022.
2 The learned advocate appearing for the opposite party submits that an application under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure was filed and the same was allowed. She submits that the amended plaint was filed in tune with the with the order passed on an application under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The submission of the learned advocate for the opposite party is disputed by Mr. Bhattacharyya, learned advocate for the petitioners. After going through the application challenging the maintainability of the suit this Court finds that mixed questions of law and fact have been raised therein and the learned trial judge has kept the issue of maintainability open to be taken up at the time of analogous trial of both the suits. In view thereof, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the order impugned. With the above observations, C.O. 1733 of 2026 stands disposed of. There shall be, however, no order as to costs. Urgent certified photocopy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties expeditiously on compliance of usual legal formalities.
(Hiranmay Bhattacharyya, J.)