Disposed

Partha Pramanic v. Atanu Pramanic and Anr.

Calcutta HC26 Jun 2023FMAT/155/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a second partition suit, the appellant challenged a status quo order despite no stay application being recorded. The bench disposed of the appeal without interference, directing the lower court to constitute a hearing for the injunction application within two months.

What did the court decide?

The appeal and connected application are disposed of. The lower court is directed to constitute a hearing for the injunction application within two months.

Partha Pramanic Vs Atanu Pramanic and Anr. — Partition | Calcutta HC (2023)

¶1

7 ss

¶2

26.06.2023

¶3

FMAT 155 of 2023 With CAN 1 of 2023

¶4

Sri. Partha Pramanic Vs. Sri. Atanu Pramanic & Anr.

¶5

Mr. Chitapriya Ghosh Mr. Samir Kumar Adhikari

¶6

… … for the appellant

¶7

Mr. Debabrata Chowdhury

¶8

… … for the respondents

¶9

We admit this appeal.

¶10

At the same time we observe that there is nothing in this appeal which would impel us to keep it pending.

¶11

Dispensing with all formalities we have heard out the appeal and are disposing of it by this order.

¶12

Mr. Chitapriya Ghosh, learned advocate appearing for the appellant submits that the impugned judgement and order dated 24^th February, 2023 of the learned Court below was passed in the second suit between the parties (Title Suit No.191 of 2023). There is also an earlier suit pending between the parties (Title Suit No.1976 of 2022). In short, the first suit is for declaration of shares of the parties in the subject property whereas the second suit relates to partition thereof. He says that the second suit should have been stayed.

¶13

We notice that in the impugned order dated 24^th February, 2023 there is no reference to any application for stay of the suit. Not even a submission in that direction is recorded.

¶14

¶15

An interim order of injunction restraining the parties to maintain status quo till 24^th March, 2023 has been made.

¶16

The application was contested by the defendant no.1 but not by the defendant no.2.

¶17

The application should be deemed to be pending.

¶18

On the available facts and on the submissions made the impugned order dated 24^th February, 2023 does not call for any interference. However, the learned Court below may be approached to fix a date for hearing of the injunction application in the presence of the defendant no.1 and the defendant no.2 after giving an opportunity to the defendant no.2 to file his written objection.

¶19

The continuance of the interim order may be reconsidered by the Court. All points which are urged by the appellant in this appeal including the question of stay of the second suit or the possibility of conflict of orders made in the above two suits are kept open before the learned Court below.

¶20

The interim application may be disposed of by the learned Court below within two months from date.

¶21

The appeal and the connected application are disposed of.

¶22

(I.P. Mukerji, J.)

¶23

(Biswaroop Chowdhury, J.)

Partha Pramanic v. Atanu Pramanic and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Partha Pramanic v. Atanu Pramanic and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Poulami Mukherjee Vs Duckbill Drugs Pvt. Ltd. and Ors.

Swati Maiti Vs Niladri Maiti

State of West Bengal Vs Rajpath Contractors and Engineers Ltd.

Darwabshaw B. Cursetjee Sons Ltd. Vs the Commissioner of Income-Tax, Ii, Kolkata

Mohindra Tubes Ltd. (Earlier Mohindra Tubes Pvt. Ltd. ) and Anr. Vs Haldibari Tea Manufactures LLP and Ors.

Sunandita Sarangi Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.