The Division bench agreed to the monthly occupation charges but disagreed on the time period for payment.
The Calcutta High Court highlighted the importance of adhering to the legislative intent behind Rule 6A of Order 8 CPC to avoid multiplicity of proceedings and ensure speedy trial.
Calcutta High Court held that issue of limitation being a question of fact ought to have been raised before trial court and evidence ought to have been adduced.
Calcutta High Court referred the appeal to the bench with jurisdiction over first appeals from orders under Order 43(1)(a) passed by a regular court of civil jurisdiction, not by a special or commercial court.
Calcutta High Court stated that court has discretion under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of the CPC to add necessary or proper parties for effective adjudication.
The Calcutta High Court asserted that occupants have the right to take steps for the comfort and safety of the building at their own cost.
Calcutta High Court noted that the mere dismissal of the first suit does not automatically render the second suit barred by res judicata.
Calcutta High Court stated that Section 10 CPC applies to suits in civil court, not proceedings under special statutes.
Calcutta High Court allowed Section 34 application of the railways and directed that the Court hearing Section 34 application should not be guided by any remarks made by the Judge in the impugned order.
“The members of the club are seen both as contributors and participators. The club and its members are seen as one person. Usually a member has to pay to avail of the services and facilities provided by the club.”