Intra-court appeal where the High Court held it was not necessary to entertain the matter since the impugned order had already recorded the respondent's submissions and disposed of the issue above board.
The appeal and I.A. GA/1/2022 were disposed of noting the trial court's order recording the respondent's submissions.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
OD-6
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION ORIGINAL SIDE
APOT/37/2022 CSOS/1/2022 I.A. NO. GA/1/2022
NANDITA JALAN
VERSUS MUKESH JALAN
BEFORE :
THE HON’BLE JUSTICE T.S. SIVAGNANAM
And
THE HON’BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA Date : 17th May, 2022.
Appearance :-
Mr. Rupak Ghosh, Adv. Mr. Ashis Kumar Mukherjee, Adv. Ms. Sulagna Mukherjee, Adv. Mr. Saurabh Prasad, Adv.
…for Appellant
Mr. Sakya Sen, Adv. Ms. Labanyashree Sinha, Adv. … for Respondents
The Court : This intra-court appeal is directed against the order dated 10th February, 2020 passed by the learned Single Bench and the appellant was before us primarily on the ground that the prayer for interim orders was not granted by the learned Single Bench.
When we heard the appeal on 21st April, 2022 we passed the following order :-
2
“This appeal is directed against the order dated 10th February, 2022 in CSOS 1 of 2022. The order reads as follows :
“The Court : Heard counsel appearing on behalf of the parties.
Mr. Sakya Sen, counsel appearing on behalf of the defendant submits that this originating suit is not maintainable and would like to place judgment to buttress his arguments.
Accordingly, let this matter come up on 2nd March, 2022.
Parties shall be at liberty to exchange affidavits in the meantime.”
The learned advocate appearing for the appellant would submit that the appellant had prayed for appropriate interim protection pending decision of the main matter before the learned Single Bench and the same having not been granted, the appellant is before this court by way of this appeal. We find from the impugned order that the learned Single Bench has recorded preliminary objection raised by the learned advocate appearing for the respondent with regard to the maintainability of the originating summons and the learned advocate desired to place certain judgments to buttress his arguments. Recording the said submission, the learned Single Bench directed the matter to be listed on 2nd March, 2022. Thereafter, the matter had come up on 2nd March, 2022, the Court noting that the affidavit in opposition was filed belatedly extended time for filing affidavit in reply by two weeks and the matter was directed to be listed after four weeks. In terms of the liberty granted, affidavit in reply was filed by the appellant before us and when the matter was heard on 6th April, 2022, the learned Single Bench had directed the matter to appear under the heading ‘Originating Summons Suit’ on 27th April, 2022.
It is at this juncture, the appellant is before us. We are of the prima facie view that the learned Single Bench having not expressed any opinion on the relief, sought for by the petitioner, it may not be appropriate for us to take up this appeal. At this juncture, learned counsel for the respondent submits that the present
3
appeal itself is not maintainable. We do not wish to express any opinion on the contention raised by the learned advocate for either side and we shall await the decision of the learned Single Bench which has directed the matter to be listed on 27th April, 2022.
Let the matter appear on 12th May, 2022.”
The learned Counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that the observation contained in our order dated 21st April, 2022 has been taken note of and the learned Trial Court has recorded the submissions made on behalf of the respondent. In the light of the same, the learned Counsel submits that the appeal may be disposed of noting the said order.
In the light of the above, the appeal stands disposed of in view of the order passed by the learned Trial Judge after recording the submission made on behalf of the respondent.
The application being I.A. NO. GA/1/2022 stands disposed of.
(T.S. SIVAGNANAM, J.)
(HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA, J.)
SN/GH. AR(CR)
Nandita Jalan
Mukesh Jalan
T.S. Sivagnanam
Hiranmay Bhattacharyya
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
