The Calcutta High Court dismissed the appeal challenging an order remanding the case to the trial court for amendment of plaint and recording evidence, finding no reason to interfere with the Additional District Judge's decision.
The appeal and the application are dismissed; no order as to costs.
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.
11.05.2022 SL No.25 Court No.8 (gc)
FMA 553 of 2022 With CAN 1 of 2018 (Old No: CAN 1658 of 2018)
Ajijul Sekh & Ors. Vs. Liakat Sekh & Ors.
Mr. Partha Pratim Roy,
…for the Appellants.
This appeal is directed against an order dated 30th August, 2017 by which the First Appellate Court has remanded the matter to the Trial Court for recording evidence and arriving at a finding for which it has now become necessary for amendment of the plaint. The order amending the plaint at the appellate stage is not disputed.
On such consideration, we do not find any reason to interfere with the order passed by the learned Additional District Judge, 2nd Court, Jangipur, Murshidabad.
Accordingly, the appeal being FMA 553 of 2022 and the application being CAN 1 of 2018 (Old No: CAN 1658 of 2018) stands dismissed.
However, there shall be no order as to costs.
Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties on usual undertaking.
(Sugato Majumdar, J.) (Soumen Sen, J.)
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the appeal against the order of remanding the matter for recording evidence and amendment of plaint requires interference.
Ajijul Sekh & Ors.
Liakat Sekh & Ors.
Sugato Majumdar
Soumen Sen
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
