Opposite party undertook not to press its Order 39 Rule 7 application before the trial court, rendering the revisional application infructuous. The revision was disposed of with a direction to the trial judge to dispose of the suit pending since 2017, preferably within six months.
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.
Item 20.12. No. 2024 22
rup Ct 22
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CIVIL REVISIONAL JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE
C.O. 2015 of 2023
Patha Bhavan Vs
Mrs. Darshan Mekani
Mr. Debdatta Sen, Sr. Adv. Mr. Siddhartha Chatterjee, Mrs. Suchishmita Ghosh Chatterjee, Mrs. Ledia Dasgupta.
… For the petitioner.
Ms. Sonal Shah, Mr. K Shah. … For the opposite party.
2
the learned Trail Judge.
(Bibhas Ranjan De, J.)
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the revisional application could be disposed of given the opposite party's undertaking not to press the Order 39 Rule 7 CPC application before the trial court.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Patha Bhavan
Mrs. Darshan Mekani
Bibhas Ranjan De
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
