The single judge court held the impugned order not appealable under Section 39(2) of the Special Marriage Act, 1954. Consequently, the appeal and application were dismissed while permitting exclusion of time spent for limitation purposes.
Appeal and application dismissed; time spent to be excluded for limitation.
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.
13.02.2023 SL No.7 Court No.8 (gc)
FMAT 445 of 2022 CAN 1 of 2022
Piku Sengupta Vs.
Parijat Sengupta
Mr. Ramprokash Banerjee, Ms. Tanusri Chanda, …for the Appellant. Mr. Sourav Sen, Mr. Aniruddha Bhattacharya, Mr. Indranuj Dutta, Mr. Asmanur Quail
…for the Respondent.
We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties.
In view of Section 39(2) of the Special Marriage Act, 1954, the order is revisable and not appealable. We are in agreement with Mr. Sen, learned Counsel representing the respondent that on the parity of reasoning in Srikumar Lahiri Vs. Sonali Lahiri reported at 2006 (1) Calcutta Law Journal 188 , the order impugned is not an appealable order.
Under such circumstances, the appeal and the application stand dismissed as the order impugned is not appealable.
However, this order shall not preclude the appellant to take appropriate steps in accordance with law.
The original certified copy of the impugned judgment may be returned to Ms. Tanusri Chanda, learned Advocate-on-record for the appellant after retaining Photostat copy of the same.
2
In the event the question of limitation arises, the time spent in this proceeding shall be excluded under Section 14 of the Limitation Act.
(Uday Kumar, J.)
(Soumen Sen, J.)
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the impugned order is appealable under Section 39(2) of the Special Marriage Act, 1954
Whether time spent in the proceeding shall be excluded under Section 14 of the Limitation Act if limitation arises
Whether the appeal and application stand dismissed due to non-maintainability
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Srikumar Lahiri Vs. Sonali LahiriRelied on¶8
Srikumar Lahiri Vs. Sonali Lahiri reported at 2006 (1) Calcutta Law Journal 188
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Piku Sengupta
Parijat Sengupta
Uday Kumar
Soumen Sen
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
