Disposed

Arun Kumar Banick Alias Basudev Banick v. Ahalaya Banick

Calcutta HC4 Oct 2021CO/1798/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge issued a revisional order under Article 227 of the Constitution directing a subordinate civil court to conclude hearing arguments in a long-pending title suit within four months, ensuring opposition was given a chance to participate.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the Civil Court to conclude hearing arguments within four months of communication of this order.

Arun Kumar Banick Alias Basudev Banick Vs… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Calcutta HC (2021)

¶1

13 04.10. AG 2021 M Ct 07

¶2

C.O. 1798 of 2021

¶3

Sri Arun Kumar Banick @ Sri Basudev Banick Versus Smt Ahalaya Banick

¶4

(Via Video conference)

¶5

Mr. Jayanta Samanta, Ms. Karunamoyee Samanta,

¶6

… For the Petitioner.

¶7

The Court is approached under Article 227 of the Constitution of India soliciting a direction to ensure expeditious disposal of a Title Suit No. 392 of 2009 pending before learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), 2^nd Court, Sealdah.

¶8

Mr. Jayanta Samanta, learned advocate representing the petitioner/plaintiff submits that the instant suit was filed in the year 2009 seeking eviction of licensee/defendant. Thereafter, the suit proceeded to a considerable extent, and on 11^th July 2019 after conclusion of the evidence, the suit was posted for hearing further argument.

¶9

It is contended by learned advocate for the petitioner that since 11^th July, 2019, the argument of this case could not be heard out, resulting in serious protraction to the trial of this case thereby affecting adversely the valuable rights of the petitioner/plaintiff as regards expeditious disposal of the pending suit.

¶10

In view of the nature of the order proposed to be obtained, and the issue sought to be addressed by this Court, the Court is of the view that this may be decided, even without securing presence of the opposite parties, giving a considerable direction for the purpose.

¶11

¶12

At the same time, the Court cannot be oblivious of the fact that due to impact of COVID-19, and its proliferation, there has been lot of disturbance in the original functioning of the Court.

¶13

However, learned Court below is directed to conclude the hearing of argument in this case expeditiously as possible, preferably within four months from the date of communication of this order, so that the logical conclusion of the case may be reached within the period.

¶14

It is, however, clarified that while making such exercise, the learned court below should offer appropriate opportunity to either of the parties to this case.

¶15

With these observations and directions the revisional application stands disposed of.

¶16

The petitioner shall communicate this order to the learned court below, as well as to the learned advocate for the opposite party appearing in the court below.

¶17

There shall be no order as to costs.

¶18

Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, given to the learned advocates for the parties on the usual undertaking.

¶19

(Subhasis Dasgupta, J)

Arun Kumar Banick Alias Basudev Banick v. Ahalaya Banick

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arun Kumar Banick Alias Basudev Banick v. Ahalaya Banick

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kalyan Krishna Nandi Vs Nita Nandi (Mani)

C. K. Birla & Anr. Vs State of West Bengal & Anr.

Rajesh Narayan and Anr. Vs Sneha Bhattacharya (Nee Chatterjee)

cygnus equipments and rentals p. Ltd. Vs Takhellambam Swami Singh and Anr.

Raojahan Ali Khan and Anr. Vs Jakir Hissain Khan and Ors.

Shweta Loharuka Vs Aditya Vikram Agarwal