Saptarshi Chowdhury Vs Minati Bhattacharjee and Ors. — Calcutta HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

Saptarshi Chowdhury Vs Minati Bhattacharjee and Ors. — Calcutta HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Court requested the learned District Judge, Howrah to consider the petitioner's application for leave to file an appeal against the ex parte decree dated April 02, 2008 (Title Suit No.72 of 2005) and, depending on the outcome of that consideration, to take follow-up steps in accordance with law; merits of the entitlement and maintainability of the appeal expressly kept open; disposed of without any order as to costs.

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner, who is not a party to the connected suit, can obtain the leave of the Appeal Court to file an appeal against the ex parte judgment and decree dated April 02, 2008 passed by the 2nd Court of the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Howrah in Title Suit No.72 of 2005, the registry of the District Judge, Howrah having declined to accept his Memorandum of Appeal.

Court's answer

Leave of the Appeal Court to prefer an appeal by a person who is not a party to the connected suit is not automatic; it depends on the satisfaction of the Appeal Court that the applicant is indeed affected by the decree.

Ratio / Principle

The learned District Judge, Howrah was requested to consider the petitioner's application for leave to file such appeal and, subject to the outcome of that consideration, to take follow-up steps in accordance with law.

Key takeaways

This Court expressly did not adjudicate the merit of the petitioner's entitlement to get the leave to prefer such an appeal; all points, including the maintainability of the said appeal, are kept open.obiter¶15

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Calcutta High Court (Civil Revisional Jurisdiction), CO 156 of 2024, decided 11.9.2024 by Biswajit Basu, J. The petitioner, not being a party to the suit connected with the ex parte judgment and decree dated April 02, 2008 passed by the 2nd Court of the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Howrah in Title Suit No.72 of 2005, was unable to lodge an appeal because the registry of the learned District Judge, Howrah declined to receive his Memorandum of Appeal and accompanying applications. Observing that leave of the Appeal Court to appeal by such a non-party is not automatic and depends on that Court's satisfaction that the applicant is indeed affected by the decree, the Court requested the District Judge to consider the petitioner's application for leave and, subject to the outcome, to take follow-up steps in accordance with law. The Court expressly did not enter into the merit of the petitioner's entitlement to leave; all points, including the maintainability of the intended appeal, were kept open. CO 156 of 2024 was disposed of without any order as to costs.

S/L 37 11.9.2024 Court No.19 SD

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CIVIL REVISIONAL JURISDICTION

CO 156 of 2024

Sri Saptarshi Chowdhury Vs.

Smt. Minati Bhattacharjee & Ors.

Mr. Kushal Chatterjee Mr. Shibjit Mitra

... for the Petitioner.

Mr. Probal Kumar Mukherjee, Sr. Adv. Ms. Shreyasi Manna

… for the Opposite Parties.

Affidavit of service filed on behalf of the petitioner be kept with the record.

The petitioner has approached this Court with a peculiar grievance that he is unable to file an appeal against the ex parte judgment and decree dated April 02, 2008 passed by the 2^nd Court of learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Howrah in Title Suit No.72 of 2005 as the registry of the learned District Judge, Howrah has declined to receive the Memorandum of Appeal and the applications thereto on the ground that the petitioner is not a party to the connected suit.

To prefer an appeal against the said ex parte decree, the petitioner needs to obtain the leave of the Appeal Court as he is not a party to the connected suit; such leave is not automatic, it depends on the satisfaction of the Appeal Court that the petitioner is indeed affected by the said decree.

The learned District Judge is therefore requested to consider the application of the petitioner for leave to file such appeal and subject to the outcome of such exercise, to take follow up steps in accordance with law.

2

However, it is made clear that this Court has not gone into the merit of the entitlement of the petitioner to get the leave to prefer such an appeal; all points including the maintainability of the said appeal are kept open.

CO 156 of 2024 is thus disposed of without any order as to costs.

Parties to act on the server copy of this order duly downloaded from the official website of this Court.

Urgent Photostat certified copies of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance with all requisite formalities.

(Biswajit Basu, J.)