Dismissed

Rajeev Sethi and Ors. v. Moaz Ahmed

Calcutta HC14 Jun 2023CS/117/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court at Calcutta disposed of a specific performance suit and a contempt application upon the petitioners' withdrawal, noting that the defendant had satisfied the subject matter of the suit. The suit was dismissed as withdrawn without costs, and the interim order was vacated.

What did the court decide?

Suit dismissed as withdrawn without order as to costs; interim order vacated.

Rajeev Sethi and Ors. Vs Moaz Ahmed — Specific Performance | Calcutta HC (2023)

¶1

OD-2

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORIGINAL SIDE

¶3

CS 117 OF 2022 IA NO. GA 1 OF 2022 IN THE MATTER OF: RAJEEV SETHI AND ORS. VS

¶4

MOAZ AHMED

¶5

BEFORE:

¶6

The Hon'ble JUSTICE ARINDAM MUKHERJEE Date : 14^th June, 2023.

¶7

Appearance: Mr. Rahul Karmakar, Adv. Mr. Arnab Sardar, Adv. For plaintiffs/petitioners

¶8

The Court : The contempt petition along with the interlocutory application filed in the suit appeared in the list on 9^th June, 2023 when the plaintiffs in the suit and petitioners in the contempt application expressed their intention to withdraw the suit as also the contempt application as the defendant has satisfied the plaintiffs in respect of the whole of the subject matter of the suit. On that date the defendant remained unrepresented and the suit was also not in the list and, as such, the plaintiffs were directed to serve a notice upon the defendant and a further direction was given for the suit being brought to the day’s list.

¶9

Today, the suit along with the interlocutory application and the contempt application are appearing in the list.

¶10

The plaintiffs have served a notice upon the defendant, which is made over to Court and kept with the record. The defendant, despite such notice, remains unrepresented. However, considering the prayer of the plaintiffs and the previous order dated 9^th June, 2023, I am inclined to take up this matter in the absence of the defendant.

¶11

¶12

RE: CS 117 of 2022

¶13

It is submitted by the plaintiffs that the suit is one for specific performance of an oral agreement for sale of a immovable property. The defendant has executed the conveyance and, as such, nothing remains to be adjudicated in the suit. The suit, therefore, be dismissed as withdrawn.

¶14

A written instruction given by the plaintiffs to their advocate-on-record by letter dated 5^th June, 2023 for withdrawal of the suit placed before the Court is also taken on record.

¶15

Considering such prayer, the suit is dismissed as withdrawn without, however, any order as to costs.

¶16

RE: GA 1 OF 2022

¶17

Since the suit has been dismissed as withdrawn, nothing further survives in this application and the same is also disposed of.

¶18

The interim order passed therein stands vacated.

¶19

(ARINDAM MUKHERJEE, J.)

¶20

Rajeev Sethi and Ors. v. Moaz Ahmed

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajeev Sethi and Ors. v. Moaz Ahmed

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

In the Matter of Estate of Sri Sri Iswar Sitaram Jew -and-Prodyut Kumar Banerjee and Anr. Vs Prasun Bhattacharya and Ors.

Upendra Kumar Vs Rajanvir Singh Kapur and Ors.

Tapas Bangari Vs Ranjit Singh Assistant Genral Manger PNB

Anjana Feeds LLP Vs Nest Farm and Anr.

Rajeev Sethi and Ors. Vs Moaz Ahmed

In the Goods of Aparna Mukherjee (Dec) Vs Na