Allowed

Smt Rinku Jaiswal and Ors. v. Sambhunath Tiwari and Anr.

Calcutta HC29 Jun 2022SA/103/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Cait High Court set aside an appellate judgment and decree in a property suit dismissed on limitation due to defective service caused by the defendant's unconsciousness. The court ordered remand to the trial court for trial within one year and awarded costs to the respondents.

What did the court decide?

Impugned judgment and decree set aside; suit remanded to trial court for trial and decree within one year; appeal dismissed.

Smt Rinku Jaiswal and Ors. Vs Sambhunath Tiwari and Anr. — Property and Title | Calcutta HC (2022)

¶1

29.06.2022 Sl.No. 14 Ct.No.3 Amalranjan

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE

¶3

SA 103 of 2022

¶4

Smt. Rinku Jaiswal & Ors. VS Sri Sambhu Nath Tiwari & Ors. With IA NO: CAN/1/2022

¶5

Mr. Bijoy Adhikary Mr. Debasish Kundu Mr. Souma Subhra Ray Ms. Sushmita Adhikary Ms. Doyel Dey

¶6

…for the appellants

¶7

Mr. Souri Ghosal Mr. Prabhat Kumar Singh …for the respondents

¶8

Re: CAN/1/2022

¶9

We admit the appeal.

¶10

By the impugned judgment and decree dated 1^st April, 2022 the appeal of the appellants/defendants was dismissed by the first appellate court on the ground of limitation. The trial court had held that the title and possession of the subject property belonged to the respondents.

¶11

Learned counsel for the appellants in this second appeal contends that the impugned judgment and decree of the trial court was obtained ex parte, inasmuch as, the original defendant at the time of service of the summons

¶12

¶13

was in an unconscious state, suffering from paralysis. He could not have any notice or knowledge of how and on whom the summons had been served. After his death, his legal heirs and representatives became aware of the decree only when the notice of execution was sought to be served upon them.

¶14

Being apprised of these facts, we do not want unnecessary time to be wasted in litigation, in an enquiry into any technicalities with regard to service of the summons or the reason for nonappearance of the appellants/defendants. By the impugned judgment and decree, the appellants/defendants have lost the title and possession of the property on purely technical grounds without the merits of the matter having been gone into by the courts. Any reasonable person would not want to lose title to or possession of a property by avoiding summons or by staying away from courts.

¶15

We are of the view that the entire suit should be heard out on contest. To protect the interest of the respondents the suit should be heard out within a limited period of time not exceeding one year from date.

¶16

The appellants should compensate them for the costs incurred in defending the appeal today,

¶17

¶18

being assessed at Rs. 10,000/- to be paid by the appellants to the respondents’ advocate on record by 31^st July, 2022.

¶19

We set aside the impugned judgment and decree dated 1^st April, 2022 in Title Appeal No. 24 of 2022 of the first appellate court and the learned trial court dated 30^th September, 2019 in TS No. 393/2019 and remand the entire suit to the trial court to be tried and decreed not later than 30^th June, 2023.

¶20

The appeal (SA 103 of 2022) is, accordingly, disposed of.

¶21

The connected application (CAN 1 of 2022) praying for stay of execution is unnecessary, as the impugned judgment and decree has been set aside by the court. It is disposed of, accordingly.

¶22

( Subhendu Samanta,J. ) ( I. P. Mukerji,J. )

Smt Rinku Jaiswal and Ors. v. Sambhunath Tiwari and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Rinku Jaiswal and Ors. v. Sambhunath Tiwari and Anr.

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

Upendra Choudhury Vs M/S J K Industries Ltd. & Ors.

Future Retail Limited and Anr. Vs Life Insurance Corporation of India and Ors.

Tushar Karfa Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.

Nirmal Kumar Roy Vs Mukul Chandra Roy and Ors.

Vikash Kumar Sahu Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.

Hasibul Haque Vs the C.B.I.