Disposed

Madhusudan Roy v. Ananda Mondal

Calcutta HC20 Jul 2021CO/3750/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court condoned a seven-day delay in restoring a revisional application. It upheld an impugned order dismissing an interlocutory appeal, declined to direct the Trial Court to approve a stay order for eighteen years, and instead directed the lower court to hear parties expeditiously and decide on status quo.

What did the court decide?

Delay condoned; impugned order upheld; petition for status quo order refused; direction to lower court to dispose temporarily for status quo subject to hearing issued.

Madhusudan Roy Vs Ananda Mondal — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Calcutta HC (2021)

¶1

52 14.9.2023 Ct. No. 236 SB

¶2

C.O. 3750 of 2005 CAN 3 of 2021 CAN 4 of 2021

¶3

In the matter of : Madhusudan Roy

¶4

Mr. M. Maiti Mr. S.S. Beyerd … for the petitioner

¶5

It appears that an inadvertent typographical error has crept into the order dated 14.7.2023 passed in this revisional application.

¶6

At the heading of the order sheet dated 14.7.2023, the name of the petitioner should actually be read as “Madhusudan Roy” instead of “Khudiram Khan”,. The other portion of the order shall remain unaltered.

¶7

The inadvertent typographical error is hereby corrected and the order dated 14.7.2023 shall always be read conjointly with this order.

¶8

In Re : CAN 3 of 2021 and CAN 4 of 2021

¶9

Heard Mr. Maiti, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner.

¶10

There was a delay of seven days in filing the application for restoration of the revisional application to its original file after recalling the order dated 20.7.2021 passed by a Co-ordinate Bench. The delay is condoned. The explanation set out for non appearance of the petitioner before the Court on 20.7.2021 is

¶11

¶12

found to be sufficiently accepted. The revisional application be restored to its original file.

¶13

The applications being CAN 3 of 2021 and CAN 4 of 2021 are disposed of.

¶14

Mr. Maiti, submits that aggrieved by the order of the learned Trial Court to pass any order of ad interim injunction, the plaintiff preferred Misc. Appeal No. 16 of 2004 before the learned District Judge, Birbhum and an order was passed directing the parties to maintain status quo on 07.6.2004. But subsequently, learned District Judge was pleased to dismiss the said Misc. Appeal and directed the learned Trial Court to dispose of the temporary injunction application as expeditiously as possible giving the respondents an opportunity to file written objection. The respondents / defendants were also directed to appear before the learned Trial Court.

¶15

Though, this revisional application manifests the displeasure of the petitioner over the judgement impugned, I do not find any reason to hold the order impugned suffers from jurisdictional error or demonstrate any perversity. Therefore, I am not inclined to interfere with the order impugned.

¶16

Mr. Maiti submits that since the matter is pending for last eighteen years, learned Trial Court may be directed to dispose of the temporary injunction application asking the parties to the suit to maintain status quo as to the possession till the disposal of the suit.

¶17

However, I refrain myself from passing such direction, the revisional application is disposed of with a request to the

¶18

¶19

learned Trial Court to dispose of the temporary injunction application, if possible, by directing the parties to maintain status quo after giving an opportunity of hearing to all the parties and to take further steps to dispose of the suit keeping in mind the rights of the litigant to have expeditious justice.

¶20

The revisional application is disposed of along with application, if any.

¶21

(Siddhartha Roy Chowdhury, J.)

Madhusudan Roy v. Ananda Mondal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Madhusudan Roy v. Ananda Mondal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Himanshu Adhikary Vs State of West Bengal

Sukumar Sarkar & Papai Vs State of West Bengal

Farjana Hasin @ Farzana Hasin @ Rohini Tabassum @ Sneha Vs State of West Bengal

Smt Keya Sengupta & Anr. Vs Shyamal Kumar Sarkar

Harkrishna Jana Vs State of West Bengal

Sumitra Pramanik Vs Mrityunjoy Pramanik & Anr.