SUIT FOR DECLARATION AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION

 

District : South 24 Parganas.

In the Court of the Learned 5^th  Civil Judge ( Junior Division ) at Alipore, South 24 Parganas.

                                               

                                                Title Suit no.          of 2017.

 

                                                In the matter of :

 

1.   Smt. Minoti Mondal wife of Late Samiran Mondal, residing at 73/82, Chakram Nagar, P.O.- R.C. Thakurani, P.S.- Haridevpur, Kolkata-700104, District - South 24 Parganas.

 

2.   Sri Saumya Mondal, Son of Late Samiran Mondal, residing at 73/82, Chakram Nagar, P.O.- R.C. Thakurani, P.S.- Haridevpur, Kolkata-700104, District - South 24 Parganas.

 

3.   Smt. Arundhuti Mondal, wife of Shri Prabir Mondal, Daughter of Late Samiran Mondal, residing at 73/82, Chakram Nagar, P.O.- R.C. Thakurani, P.S.- Haridevpur, Kolkata-700104, District - South 24 Parganas.

                                                                                                                                                                                                _______Plaintiffs.

 

-      Versus –

 

1. Sri Sarbeshwar Mondal son of Pratap Mondal of Chakram Nagar(Indira Uddyan), P.O.- R.C. Thakurani, P.S.- Haridevpur, Kolkata-700104, Dist.- South 24 Parganas.

 

2. Shyamapada Chatterjee son of Sanatan Kumar Chatterjee of Chakram Nagar, P.O.- R.C. Thakurani, P.S.- Haridevpur, Kolkata-700104, Dist.- South 24 Parganas                                                                                                               ________Defendants

 

SUIT FOR DECLARATION AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION VALUED AT RS.200/-

 

The Plaintiffs beg to states as follows :-

 

1.    That the Plaintiff no.1, is a senior Citizen of the Country. She is widower old aged lady, solely dependent on her only Son, who is the plaintiff no.2, herein, in the plaint, and permanently residing at the address as given in the cause title of the plaint.

 

2.    That the Plaintiff no.1, is a widower of Late Samiran Mondal and she has one son and one daughter namely Sri Saumya Mondal and Smt. Arundhuti Mondal respectively. She and her children belong to the mediocre family. Her husband has been given by the West Bengal State Government, the land of shali nature measuring about 17 decimal, comprising in previous Dag no.- 266, Khatian no.- 123,and present Dag no.-292,Khatian no.-495/1, Mouza- Jeadergote, J. L. no. 29, District -  South 24 Parganas for the purpose of cultivation under the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 and consequently the said land is inherited by the petitioner with her son and daughter.

 

3.    That the Plaintiffs are the co sharer in the schedule land of shali nature measuring about 17 decimal, comprising in previous Dag no.- 266, Khatian no.- 123,and present Dag no.-292,Khatian no.-495/1, Mouza- Jeadergote, J. L. no. 29, District -  South 24 Parganas, and enjoying the said schedule land uninterestedly, and without any intervention thereof from any one, whosoever since the date of the death of Samiran Mondal, who died on 22-12-2001.

 

4.    That the Defendants, herein being the absolute stranger along with some bad elements forcefully and illegally with ulterior motive entering into the land of shali nature measuring about 17 decimal, comprising in previous Dag no.- 266, Khatian no.- 123,and present Dag no.-292,Khatian no.-495/1, Mouza- Jeadergote, J. L. no. 29, District -  South 24 Parganas, and pouring rubbish (wastage material of building) on the land of the Plaintiff.

 

5.    That on 06-10-2017 at about 8.00 a. m. while the Plaintiff visited her land which is nearby her residence, she was astonished to see that two trucks were releasing rubbish (wastage material of building) on her land, while she put her strong intervention then they said that " ami to driver ar ora to helper, amra kichhu jani na, amader KMC theke bolechhe ekhane rubbish fele dite, tai felchhi, kichhu bolar thakle KMC te jan" and piled up their rubbish on her land, thereafter she met with the councilor of her locality, who was unable to say anything regarding this event. Therefore the Plaintiff on 07.11.2017 lodged the complaint before Haridevpur police station but the police did not take any action to stop the illegal work and protect the land from land grabbers who continuing their illegal activities by the name of KMC.

 

6.    That thereafter on 10.11.2017 at about 8.30 a.m. while the petitioner visiting her land, she saw again some trucks were pouring rubbish (wastage material of building) in her land, and while she put strong intervention and objection against such illegal act, Sri Sarbeshwar Mondal son of Pratap Mondal of Chakram Nagar(Indira Uddyan), P.O.- R.C. Thakurani, P.S.- Haridevpur, Kolkata-700104, Dist.- South 24 Parganas and Shri Shyamapada Chatterjee son of Sanatan Kumar Chatterjee of Chakram Nagar, P.O.- R.C. Thakurani, P.S.- Haridevpur, Kolkata-700104, Dist.- South 24 Parganas, the respondent herein, came before her with angry mood and started shouting and threaten her to leave the place otherwise they would bit her and also stated that they are doing the job as per instruction of the KMC but when the petitioner asked the documents, they denied to show any documents of KMC where she can find the order or instruction of KMC,  but the petitioner never agreed to leave that place because the land is her own, then they started abusive languages upon her and try to assault her, in that compelling circumstances, with the intervention of other vicinity people she bound to left the place.

 

7.    That on 13.11.2017, the Plaintiff again lodged the complaint before the Haridevpur police station against Sri Sarbeshwar Mondal son of Pratap Mondal of Chakram Nagar(Indira Uddyan), P.O.- R.C. Thakurani, P.S.- Haridevpur, Kolkata-700104, and Shri Shyamapada Chatterjee son of Sanatan Kumar Chatterjee of Chakram Nagar, P.O.- R.C. Thakurani, P.S.- Haridevpur, Kolkata-700104 and request the officer in charge of Haridevpur police station to take necessary endeavor to protect the land of the petitioner and also take the action against Sri Sarbeshwar Mondal son of Pratap Mondal of Chakram Nagar(Indira Uddyan), P.O.- R.C. Thakurani, P.S.- Haridevpur, Kolkata-700104, and Shri Shyamapada Chatterjee son of Sanatan Kumar Chatterjee of Chakram Nagar, P.O.- R.C. Thakurani, P.S.- Haridevpur, Kolkata-700104 who are the absolute stranger and deliberately trying to grab the land of the Plaintiff.

 

8.    That in these circumstances, the Plaintiff feels that a huge conspiracy made  to grab her property in the name of KMC and  Sri Sarbeshwar Mondal and Sri Shyamapada Chatterjee are the kingpin of the entire episode and as they are politically motivated, the police did not act according to law.

 

9.    That Sri Sarbeshwar Mondal and Sri Shyamapada Chatterjee being the absolute strangers along with some bad elements forcefully, illegally with ulterior motive trying to enter into the land of shali nature measuring about 17 decimal, comprising in previous Dag no.- 266, Khatian no.- 123,and present Dag no.-292,Khatian no.-495/1, Mouza- Jeadergote, J. L. no. 29, District -  South 24 Parganas  to  harass the Plaintiff and to grab the said land.

 

10. That on 10.11.2017 the Defendants openly threaten the Plaintiff with ulterior motive and filthy languages in the schedule property with the supports of some bad elements of the vicinity creating serious situation and dire consequences thereof.

 

11. That due to reckless, unwanted and cunning attitude of the Defendants, the plaintiff  bearing huge loss and injury in her mind and finding no way the Plaintiff lodged two complaints against the Defendants on 07.11.2017 and 13.11.2017 at  Haridevpur Police Station, South 24 Parganas.

 

12. That the Defendants are the absolute stranger in respect to the suit property and has no right, title and interest in the said property.

 

13. That the cause of action arose on 07-11-2017, and 13.11.2017 when the Defendants openly threatened the Plaintiff within the premises of  the land of shali nature measuring about 17 decimal, comprising in previous Dag no.- 266, Khatian no.- 123, and present Dag no.-292, Khatian no.- 495/1, Mouza - Jeadergote, J. L. no. 29, District -  South 24 Parganas under the Police Station- Haridevpur,  which lies in the jurisdiction of this Learned Court.

 

14. That the Plaintiffs have good primafacie in this case and balance of convenience and inconvenience always lies in favour of the Plaintiffs to obtain relief in respect to the said property.

 

15. That to ascertain court fees and determination of jurisdiction this is a suit for declaration and permanent injunction and therefore advaloram court fees paid in terms of the prescribed law for the time being in force.

 

16. The plaintiffs therefore prays for the following :

 

a)    A decree for Declaration that the plaintiffs have right, title, and interest and possession over the suit property;

 

b)   A decree for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from interfering the peaceful possession of the plaintiff in respect to the suit property;

 

c)    A decree for all costs;

 

d)   A decree for such other relief or reliefs as the plaintiffs are entitled to get, in the factual circumstances and or in terms of the Law.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Schedule of Property

 

 ALL THAT piece and parcel of land of shali nature measuring about 17 decimal, comprising in previous Dag no.- 266, Khatian no.- 123,and present Dag no.-292,Khatian no.-495/1, Mouza- Jeadergote, J. L. no. 29, District South 24 Parganas, together with the area of uses and easements, butted and bounded in the manner as follows :

 

BY NORTH           :        

 

BY SOUTH           :        

 

BY EAST               :        

 

BY WEST              :        

 

 

Valuation statement

 

This Suit is valued at Rs. 200/- for the Declaration and permanent injunction.

 

 

Documents relied on by the Plaintiffs

 

i)             Indenture of Govt. “PATTA”;

ii)           Record of Right published by B.L. & L.R.O.;

iii)          Communication to Police and Others;

iv)          Other necessary documents and papers.

 

 

 

 

 

Verification

 

 

We do hereby solemnly declare that the above statements are all true to the best of our knowledge and belief and sign this verification as on ________day of ________________’ 2017, at Alipore Judges’ Court premises.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

AFFIDAVIT

I, Smt. Minoti Mondal wife of Late Samiran Mondal, aged about _____years, by faith Hindu, by Occupation House Wife, residing at premises being no. 73/82, Chakram Nagar, P.O.- R.C. Thakurani, P.S.- Haridevpur, Kolkata-700104, District - South 24 Parg, do hereby solemnly affirm and declare as follows :

1.   That I am the plaintiff no. 1, in the present suit.

2.   That I am authorized by the plaintiff no. 2, and 3, to swear this affidavit

3.   That I am competent to swear this affidavit.

4.   That I am fully aware and well conversant with the facts and circumstances of this suit.

5.   That the facts contained in the paragraph nos. _______to ______, are true to my knowledge and belief.

6.   That the rest paragraphs are my humble submissions before the Learned Court.

That the above statements are true to my knowledge and belief.

 

 

DEPONENT

Identified by me,

 

Advocate

 

Prepared in my Chamber,

 

Advocate.

Date : _________________2017

Place : Alipore Judges’ Court.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

VAKALATNAMA

District : South 24 Parganas.

In the Court of the Learned 5^th Civil Judge ( Junior Division ) at Alipore, South 24 Parganas.

T.S.no. ______________of 2017.

Smt. Minoti Mondal, and others.                                                               ___________ Plaintiff.

-          Versus –

Shri Sarbeswar Mandal and others.                                                         ____________Defendants.

KNOW ALL MEN by these presents that I / We, 1) Smt. Minoti Mondal wife of Late Samiran Mondal, aged about 66 yrs., residing at 73/82, Chakram Nagar, P.O.- R.C. Thakurani, P.S.- Haridevpur, Kolkata- 700104, District - South 24 Parganas, 2) Sri Saumya Mondal, Son of Late Samiran Mondal, residing at 73/82, Chakram Nagar, P.O.- R.C. Thakurani, P.S.- Haridevpur, Kolkata-700104, District - South 24 Parganas, and Smt. Arundhuti Mondal, wife of Shri Prabir Mondal, Daughter of Late Samiran Mondal, residing at 73/82, Chakram Nagar, P.O.- R.C. Thakurani, P.S.- Haridevpur, Kolkata-700104, District - South 24 Parganas,

vkils, jointly and each of them severally to be pleader of take such steps and proceedings as may be necessary on my / our behalf and for that purpose to make sign, verify and present all necessary petitions, plaints, written statements and other documents and do nominate and appoint or retain senior counsels, vakil, advocates and other persons, lodge and deposits moneys and documents and other papers in the Ld. Court and the same again withdraw and to take out of Court and to obtain or grant as the case may be effectual receipts and discharge for the same and for all moneys which may be payable to me / us in the premises. To enter into compromise with my / our approval and withdraw, all moneys from the court AND GENERALLY  to act in the premises and proceedings arising there out whether by way of execution, review, appeal, or otherwise or in any manner contested there with as effectually and to all intents and purpose as I / We could act if personally present and such substitution and as pleasure to revoke I / We hereby ratifying and agreeing to confirm whatever may be lawfully done by virtue hereof.

In witness whereof this Vakalatnama has been executed by me / us.

This the …………………day of ………………2017. Sri Ashok Kumar Singh, Advocate. High Court Bar Association Room No. 15, High Court at Calcutta, Mobile Number : 9883070666 / 9836829666, Email : aksinghadvocate@rediffmail.com

Sri Anindya Chakraborty,  Advocate.  Sri Pradip Kumar Mandal,  Advocate.  Sri Rabindra Nath Das,  Advocate.   Sri Biplab Som,  Advocate.   

put up petition before special court

 

District : South 24 Parganas

In the Court of the Learned Special Judge Additional District Session Judge, 2^nd Court at Alipore South 24 Parganas ( POCSO ).

 

                                                Re.:    SPL S.T. no. 11 (3) 2019

                                                          SPL Case no. 289 of 2018

 

( arising out of Nodakhali Police Station Case no. 326 dated 27-11-2018, under Section 365 of Indian Penal Code’ 1860 and Under Section 4, & 7 of POCSO Act ) ;

 

                                                          In the matter of :

                                                         

                                                          The State of West Bengal

                                                                             ________Complainant

-      Versus –

-       

Shri Gokul Adhikari @ Gokul Adhikary, Son of Late Adhar Chandra Adhikari, residing at Village – Purba Nischintapur, Post Office & Police Station – Budge Budge, District – South 24 Parganas. { in Jail since 27-11-2018 }.                   _______Accused

PUT UP PETITION

Last Date 06-05-2020

 

The humble petition of the above named petitioner being alleged accused most respectfully;

S H E W E T H :

 

1.   That the Petitioner has been arrested as on 27-11-2018, and consequently produced before the Learned Special Court 2^nd Additional District Session Judge, at Alipore, South 24 Parganas, and since then the petitioner is in Jail Custody. One Bail application under Section 439 of Cr. P. C. filed before the Hon’ble High Court, by the Petitioner vide C.R.M. no. 2039 of 2020, which has been rejected on 24-02-2020, by the Hon’ble High Court. The Learned Court below lastly on 17-12-2019, has rejected Bail Application. Copies are attached with this application.

 

2.   That this application moved in the necessity as to save the life of your petitioner from spreading COVID 19 pandemic circumstances and more particularly your petitioner is innocent and he do not have any iota of the alleged offences against him.

 

3.   That your petitioner would prefer a Bail application before the Learned Court, seeking thereof necessary urgent intervention, as your petitioner is an old aged and innocent person.

 

4.   That this application is made bonafide in the interest of administration of justice.

 

It is therefore, prayed that Your Honour would graciously be pleased to allow this put up petition and direct the bench clerk to put up the case record of the above referred Criminal Case proceeding, on board before the Learned Court for necessary intervention, in the interest of administration of justice, and or to pass such other necessary order or orders as your Honour may deem, fit, and proper for the end of justice.

 

 

And for this act of kindness, the petitioners as in duty bound shall ever pray.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Undertaking

 

I, undertake to pay deficit court fees within 48 hours of opening the Learned Court, after attaining normalcy and consent that the matter is to be heard through videoconferencing.

 

I, further undertake to accommodate and coordinate the Learned Court, in any manner, as may be directed or arising out of necessity before the Learned Court.

 

 

 

Advocate on record

Date : 4^th day of June’ 2020

privity of contract

 

The doctrine of privity of contract is a common law principle which provides that a contract cannot confer rights or impose obligations upon any person who is not a party to the contract.

The premise is that only parties to contracts should be able to sue to enforce their rights or claim damages as such. However, the doctrine has proven problematic because of its implications for contracts made for the benefit of third parties who are unable to enforce the obligations of the contracting parties. In England and Wales, the doctrine has been substantially weakened by the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999, which created a statutory exception to privity (enforceable third party rights).

 

Section 2(d) in The Indian Contract Act, 1872

(d) When, at the desire of the promisor, the promisee or any other person has done or abstained from doing, or does or abstains from doing, or promises to do or to abstain from doing, something, such act or abstinence or promise is called a consideration for the promise;

 

Section 2(h) in The Indian Contract Act, 1872

(h) An agreement enforceable by law is a contract;

 

Proclamation for person absconding

 

” 82 Proclamation for person absconding.- (1) If any Court has reason to believe (whether after taking evidence or not) that any person against whom a warrant has been issued by it has absconded or is concealing himself so that such warrant cannot be executed, such Court may publish a written proclamation requiring him to appear at a specified place and at a specified time not less than thirty days from the date of publishing such proclamation.

(2) The proclamation shall be published as follows:-

(i) (a) it shall be publicly read in some conspicuous part of the town or village in which such person ordinarily resides;

(b) it shall be affixed to some conspicuous part of the house or homestead in which such person ordinarily resides or to some conspicuous place of such town or village;

(c) a copy thereof shall be affixed to some conspicuous part of the Court-house;

(ii) the Court may also,if it thinks fit, direct a copy of the proclamation to be published in a daily newspaper circulating in the place in which such person ordinarily resides.

(3) A statement in writing by the Court issuing the proclamation to the effect that the proclamation was duly published on a specified day, in the manner specified in clause (i) of sub-section (2), shall be conclusive evidence that the requirements of this section have been complied with, and that the proclamation was published on such day.

[(4) Where a proclamation published under sub-section (1) is in respect of a person accused of an offence punishable under Section 302,304,364,367,382,392,393,394,395,396,397,398,399,400,402,436,449,4 59 or 460 of the Indian Penal Code ( 45 of 1860), and such person fails to appear at the specified place and time required by the proclamation, the Court may, after making such inquiry as it thinks fit, pronounce him a proclaimed offender and make a declaration to that effect.

(5) The provisions of sub-sections (2) and (3) shall apply to a declaration made by the Court under sub-section (4) as they apply to the proclamation published under sub-section (1). ]”

11. Sub-section (4) of Section 82 of the Cr.P.C. appears to be applicable in respect of a person accused of an offence punishable under specific Sections of the Indian Penal Code indicated and the word proclaimed offender appears in the said Sub- Section (4) of Section 82 of the Cr.P.C. Some discretion has been given to court to hold inquiry before pronouncing any accused as proclaimed offender under sub-section (4) of Section 82 of the Code. Sub-Section (5) of Section 82 Cr.P.C. indicates that sub- section (2) and sub-section (3) shall apply to declaration made by the Court under sub- section (4) as they applied to the proclamation published under sub-section (1). In the present case we are not concerned with sub-section (4) because the petitioner is not an accused of the offence indicated under said sub-section (4) of Section 82 of the Code.

consumer cases

Consumer cases are very expedious and effective in providing relief / reliefs to the applicant / petitioner in connection with the disputes related to the purchasing of flat, plot with civil aminities, land owners, insurance, banking, medical negligence, etc. Relates to the defective goods, deficiency in services, and unfair trade practices, etc.

Ashok Kumar Singh, Advocate

High Court Bar association room no. 15, High court Calcutta. Mobile number : 9883070666 / 9836829666 Email : aksinghadvocate@rediffmail.com

ashok kumar singh advocate

AFFIDAVIT: UNDER SECTION 24 OF THE C.P.C. -SEEKING TRANSFER OF SUIT

 AFFIDAVIT: UNDER SECTION 24 OF THE C.P.C. -SEEKING TRANSFER OF SUIT

 

BEFORE THE HON'BLE DISTRICT COURT,                                     

Transfer original petition No                 of 20                 

In

Original Suit No               of 20                       

BEFORE THE COURT OF                             

Petitioner/Defendant:

Vs.

Respondent/Plaintiff:

AFFIDAVIT of, ......................... , S/o.................................. , aged................................ years,

now residing in..............................................

The deponent named above hereby solemnly affirms and declares as under:—

1.   That the deponent is the petitioner in the Transfer O.P. and the defendant
in the suit referred to above. The deponent is well conversant with the
facts and circumstances of the case and competent to swear to the
affidavit. The deponent will be referred to as the petitioner hereinafter.

2.   That the suit referred to above has been filed by the respondent-plaintiff

before the sub-Court, ............................................. The trial of the said suit is

almost midway.

3.   That it is respectfully submitted that the petitioner here has very strong
reasons to suspect that he may not get justice at the hands of the

person presiding in the sub-Court........................................... Evidence has been

shut out abruptly and without following the due course of law by the learned sub-Judge, who, on various occasions during the trial, allowed the trial conducted in a manner prejudicial to the petitioner.

4.   That it is further submitted that the Presiding Officer did not allow the
petitioner's counsel to cross-examine the respondent in detail and on the
submission of the respondent-plaintiff that he has no further evidence to
offer, the sub-Judge turned down the request of the petitioner for
permission to cross-examine the respondent and to let in independent
evidence in evidence. The sub-Judge then closed the evidence and

posted the case for judgment to ...................................... The Counsel for the

respondent submitted that his arguments could be taken as heard and no opportunity was given to the petitioner to let in evidence or to his counsel to argue the matter.

5... That if the order of the Subordinate Judge's Court                               closing the

evidence and posting the case for judgment is allowed to be sustained, it will cause irreparable loss, injury, hardship and inconvenience to the petitioner since he has very serious contentions in the suit and will be in a position to disprove the claims and contentions of the respondent by letting in oral evidence.

6.   That the decision of the learned sub-Judge has not only slammed the
doors of justice on the face of the petitioner but has mocked the law of

the land and the principles of natural justice. The conduct of the learned sub-Judge in general and the said decision in particular have gone a long way in creating a genuine apprehension in the mind of the petitioner that he will not get justice at the hands of the sub-Judge.

7.   That in view of the aforementioned circumstances, the petitioner deserves
and prays that the suit be transferred from the files of the Subordinate

Judge's Court,..................... Since both the parties to the suit are residing in

a place equi-distant from.................. and............ and nobody will be put to any

inconvenience by the transfer of the case
from................ to..................... which place is a competent civil court.

8.   That it is, therefore, just and necessary that this Hon'ble Court, in the
interest of equity and good conscience, transfer the suit O.S.

No....... of............................ before the Subordinate Judge's Court,................... to

the files of the Subordinate Judge's Court,.............................. , as prayed for in

the accompanying application.

Sd./ Deponent.

Verification

Verified at....................................... on this the                                  day of                           ,

20................. , that the contents of the above affidavit are true and correct to the best

of my knowledge, belief and information and nothing material has been concealed therefrom.

Sd./ Deponent.

Solemnly affirmed and signed before me by the deponent, who is personally
known to me, on this the............................. day of............... ,20....................

Sd./

Counsel for the deponent.

Note: Affidavit to be attested by the appropriate authority prescribed under law. Prayer may be avoided to the possible extend and only facts to stated is affidavits.