Smt Neoti Pal and Ors. Vs Smt Geeta Mondal and Ors. — Writ and Judicial Review | Calcutta HC (2024)

Smt Neoti Pal and Ors. Vs Smt Geeta Mondal and Ors. — Writ and Judicial Review | Calcutta HC (2024)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

Issue for consideration

Whether the impugned order dated 09.12.2021 of the Learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, Bankura in Title Appeal No. 08 of 2015 (refusing withdrawal of the suit under Order 23 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure) suffers from any illegality or infirmity warranting invocation of the revisional power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. +1 more

Court's answer

No illegality or infirmity was found in the order impugned in the revisional application, and therefore the power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India was not invoked.

Ratio / Principle

The application under Order 23 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure was rightly dealt with by the learned appellate court by refusing it, because the petitioners had made a prayer for withdrawal of a suit which had already been disposed of.

Key takeaways

In passing, the petitioners always have the liberty to withdraw the appeal at any point of time.obiter¶15

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court at Calcutta, C.O. 1234 of 2022 (decided 03.12.2024, Bibhas Ranjan De, J.) — Revisional application DISMISSED. The Court found no illegality or infirmity in the order impugned in the revisional application and accordingly declined to invoke Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The impugned order, dated 09.12.2021 of the Learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, Bankura in Title Appeal No. 08 of 2015, had refused the petitioners' prayer under Order 23 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure (read with Section 151, per the contents of the withdrawal petition relied on by the opposite parties) to withdraw Title Suit No. 96 of 2019 (Original No. 29 of 2007) — a suit already disposed of on merit by the learned Trial Judge; the appellate court had further noted that the cause of action of the original suit took place in the year 2007, whereas the plaintiffs/appellants alleged a cause of action for recovery of khas possession taking place in the year 2015. Any interim order, if there be any, stands vacated, and the petitioners remain at liberty to withdraw the appeal at any point of time.

03.12.2024 Ct. No. 22 Sl. No.74 KB

In The High Court at Calcutta Civil Revisional Jurisdiction Appellate Side

C.O. 1234 of 2022

Smt. Neoti Pal and others -versusSmt. Geeta Mondal & Ors.

Mr. Soumik Ganguli, Mr. Tanmoy Mukherjee. … For the petitioners.

Mr. Kushal Chatterjee, Mr. Debrup Choudhury. …For the Opposite Parties.

This revisional application has been filed assailing the order dated 9^th December, 2021 passed in Title Appeal No.08 of 2015 wherein Learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, Bankura refused the prayer for withdrawal of the suit under Order 23 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

Heard both the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties to the revisional application.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners in his usual fairness again, has submitted that the petitioners filed one application under Order 23 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure with prayer for withdrawal of the Title Suit No. 96 of 2019 (Original No.

2

29 of 2007) which was disposed of on merit by the learned Trial Judge.

Learned appellate court refused the application holding, inter alia, that cause of action of the original suit took place in the year 2007 whereas the plaintiffs/appellants alleged that the cause of action for recovery of khas possession took place in the year 2015.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite parties also relied on the contents of the petition under Order 23 Rule 1 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure filed by the petitioners as well as the order impugned in this revisional application.

The application under Order 23 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure was rightly dealt with by the learned appellate court by the order of refusal as petitioners have made a prayer for withdrawal of a suit which has already been disposed of.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners has submitted that liberty may be granted to withdraw the appeal. But the petitioners always have the liberty to withdraw the appeal at any point of time.

However, I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the order impugned in this revisional application to invoke the power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

3

With the aforesaid observations, the

revisional application stands dismissed.

Interim order, if there be, any stands vacated.

All parties shall act on the basis of a server copy of this order duly downloaded from the official website of this Court.

Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties on compliance of necessary formalities.

(Bibhas Ranjan De, J.)