Dismissed

Sankar Chakraborty and Anr. v. Dipak Chakraborty

Calcutta HC14 Nov 2022CO/907/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Court dismissed a revision under Art. 227, upholding a trial court order denying a local inspection prayer due to lack of specific claim of urgent repair need, affirming that claim while directing trial court to expedite disposal.

What did the court decide?

revision dismissed; impugned order affirmed; interim order vacated; liberty to file similar application granted; direction to expedite suit disposal within a year.

Sankar Chakraborty and Anr. Vs Dipak Chakraborty — Property and Title | Calcutta HC (2022)

¶1

S/L 29 14.11.2022 Court. No. 12 Sourav/ Suvayan

¶2

CO 907 of 2022

¶3

Sankar Chakraborty & Anr. Vs. Dipak Chakraborty

¶4

Mr. Rwitendra Banerjee Mr. Sandip Kundu

¶5

… for the Petitioners.

¶6

Mr. Sayan Sinha Mr. Adil Naser

¶7

…for the opposite party. Heard the learned advocate for the

¶8

petitioners/defendants at length.

¶9

Perused the certified copy of the impugned order as well as the annexures to the petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

¶10

On perusal of the certified copy of the impugned order, it reveals that the learned trial Court by the self-same order refused to grant the prayer for local inspection as prayed for by the petitioners/defendants before the learned trial Court. It is contended before this Court that such local inspection is very much necessary since the suit property is in dilapidated condition and the same is in urgent need of repair.

¶11

Mr. Sayan Sinha, learned advocate for the opposite party/plaintiff opposes such contention.

¶12

Drawing attention of this Court to the photocopy of the petition for inspection, it is argued on behalf of the opposite party that nowhere in the said application for commission, the petitioners/defendants before the learned

¶13

¶14

trial Court has stated that the property is in urgent need of repair.

¶15

In considered view of this Court, the argument as advanced by learned advocate for the opposite party/plaintiff is very much convincing. Admittedly, in the petition for local inspection as filed before the learned trial Court, it has not been stated specifically by the present petitioners/defendants that the suit property is in urgent need of repair.

¶16

In view of such, this Court finds no illegality and infirmity in the impugned order.

¶17

The instant revisional application being CO 907 of 2022 is, thus, dismissed on contest.

¶18

The impugned order number 17 dated 25.11.2021 as passed by the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Amta, Howrah is hereby affirmed. The interim order as passed on 10.05.2022 stands hereby vacated. Let a copy of this order be sent down at once.

¶19

Liberty is given to the present petitioners/defendants to file similar such application before the learned trial Court if occasion arises.

¶20

It is further directed that learned trial Court shall make an endeavour to dispose of Title Suit No. 107 of 2018 preferably within a year from the date of communication of this order.

¶21

(Partha Sarathi Sen, J.)

Sankar Chakraborty and Anr. v. Dipak Chakraborty

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sankar Chakraborty and Anr. v. Dipak Chakraborty

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Satya Narayan Sen @ Swain Vs Anita Sen & & Ors.

Manimala Gupta & Anr. Vs Lakshmi Devi & Ors.

Sk. Akramul Haque Vs Mahuya @ Mohuya Das

Suniti Kundu Vs State of West Bengal & Ors.

Tapan Kumar Bose Vs Union of India

Nandagopal Choudhuri Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.