Dismissed¶20

Rajat Ghosh v. Ratna Ghosh

Calcutta HC5 Feb 2024CO/183/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Civil revision against interlocutory adjournment order in matrimonial suit; refusal to dispense with service of notice on defendant No.2; registered-post notice returned unserved endorsed 'No such person in this address'; notice through court awaited; discharge of husband under Section 245(3) CrPC in bigamy proceedings urged to show defendant No.2 not a necessary party; defendant impleaded in personal capacity; carriage of proceedings with plaintiff; revision dismissed; suit to be expedited on completion of service; no order as to costs.

What did the court decide?

No relief to the revision petitioner; suit directed to be expedited upon completion of service; no order as to costs. ¶20

Rajat Ghosh Vs Ratna Ghosh — Calcutta HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

¶1

05.02.2024 Sl. No.16(ML) srm

¶2

C.O. No. 183 of 2024

Sri Rajat Ghosh

Versus

Smt. Ratna Ghosh

Mr. Debasis Sur, Mr. Hare Krishna Halder, Mr. Mrinmay Chatterjee, Mr. Nilay Baran Mondal

¶7

…for the Petitioner.

¶8

Mr. Noni Gopal Chakraborty

¶9

…for the Opposite Party.

¶10

The order impugned dated June 16, 2023, passed in Mat Suit No.349 of 2019, by the Additional District Judge, Chandannagore, Hooghly (In-Charge), has been challenged.

¶11

The order impugned reads as follows:

¶12

“P.O is on leave. Ld. Additional District & Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Chandannagore, Hooghly is in charge.

¶13

In view of exorbitant heat wave condition, resolution is taken by Local Bar requesting not to peas any adverse order if no steps are taken by them. Petitioner/wife takes no steps.

¶14

Notice issued through registered post is received unserved with report on envelop as mentioned ‘No such person in this address’. Seen. Let it be kept with the record. Notice issued through court has not yet been received after service. None move. Case is adjourned. Fix 08.8.23 for SR.”

¶15

The contention of the learned Advocate for petitioner is

¶16

that service upon the defendant No.2 should be dispensed

¶17

¶18

with, as the criminal proceedings against the husband, on the allegation of bigamy had been disposed of and the petitioner was discharged under Section 245(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Such discharge would go to show that the defendant No.2 was not at all a necessary party in the proceeding.

¶19

I do not find any illegality in the order impugned. It is not for the petitioner to say whether the defendant No.2 should be served or not. The defendant No.2 has been impleaded in her personal capacity and carriage of proceedings in the hands of the plaintiff. The court recorded that the notice through registered post was un-served and the envelope mentioned “No such person in this address”. The court is awaiting a report, to see whether the notice issued through court could be delivered or not, at the address of the defendant No.2.

¶20

Accordingly, the revisional application is dismissed.

¶21

Upon completion of service, the suit should be expedited.

¶22

There shall be no order as to costs.

¶23

Parties are directed to act on the basis of the server copy

¶24

of this order.

¶25

(Shampa Sarkar, J.)

Rajat Ghosh v. Ratna Ghosh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajat Ghosh v. Ratna Ghosh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Devarat Builders Pvt. Ltd. Vs Ratnabali Investment Pvt. Ltd. and Anr.

Dongfang Electric (India) Private Limited Vs Aristocrat International Private Limited

Supriya Das Vs Pramita Dutta

Mr. John Mantosh Vs Mrs. Mary Amm Mukherjee and Ors.

Priti Datta and Ors. Vs Anima Dey and Anr.

Parul Basu Vs Laxmikanta Das and Anr.