Disposed¶15

Tuhin Mukherjee v. Sutapa Das and Anr.

Calcutta HC8 Mar 2024CO/246/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Ex parte hearing; application to vacate ex parte order; one-month disposal direction to court below; adequate opportunity to contest; preponement of date; notice to opposite parties; Title Suit No.126 of 2022; Civil Judge (Junior Division) 2nd Court Alipore; C.O. 246 of 2024; Shampa Sarkar J.; no order as to costs; no opinion on merits.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the learned court below to dispose of the application for vacating the ex parte hearing order within one month from communication of this order, with adequate opportunity to the parties to contest; petitioner entitled to pray for preponement; no order as to costs. ¶15

Tuhin Mukherjee Vs Sutapa Das and Anr. — Calcutta HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

¶1

Item No.7 08.03.2024 Court. No. 19 GB

¶2

C.O. 246 of 2024

¶3

Tuhin Mukherjee Vs.

¶4

Smt. Sutapa Das & Anr.

¶5

Mr. Chayan Gupta, Mr. Shoham Sanyal, Mr. Sumit Biswas, Ms. R. Bhowmick

¶6

… for the Petitioner.

¶7

The petitioner is the defendant in Title Suit No.126 of 2022, which is pending before the Learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), 2^nd Court at Alipore.

¶8

It is submitted that the suit was proceeding ex parte against the petitioner. The petitioner filed an application for vacating the order by which the suit was fixed for ex parte hearing. It is submitted that the said application has been pending since long and should be disposed of on merits before any other pending application is taken up.

¶9

Considering the submissions, this Court is of the view that the prayer of the petitioner is innocuous. Neither party stands to lose if a proceeding is disposed of expeditiously. In fact, such expeditious disposal shall enure to the benefit of the parties. Hence, there is no requirement for service of prior notice upon the opposite parties.

¶10

The revisional application is disposed of with a direction upon the learned court below, to dispose of the application for vacating within a period of one month from the date of communication of this order. Adequate opportunity shall be given to the parties to contest the same.

¶11

¶12

The petitioner shall be entitled to pray for preponement of the date if any later date has been fixed by the learned court. All steps shall be taken upon notice to the opposite parties and upon serving a copy of the application upon the opposite parties.

¶13

This court has neither expressed any opinion on the merits of the suit or on the merits of the application. The learned court shall proceed independently and in accordance with law.

¶14

A copy of the revisional application, along with a server copy of this order be served upon the opposite parties and/or the learned advocate contesting the matter on behalf of the opposite parties in the learned court below.

¶15

The revisional application is accordingly disposed of.

¶16

There shall be no order as to costs.

¶17

Parties are to act on the server copy of this order.

¶18

(Shampa Sarkar, J.)

Tuhin Mukherjee v. Sutapa Das and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tuhin Mukherjee v. Sutapa Das and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sk Rejabul and Ors. Vs Sk Ainal Haque

Smt. Manika Deb and Anr. Vs Sri Tapas Kumar Deb

MD Mohasin Ali Gazi Vs Motibur Rahaman Gazi and Ors.

Ayesha Bibi and Ors. Vs Jahidul Sarkar

W.B.Law Clerks Assn.,Baruipur Cr.C.& Anr. Vs State of W.B.

Abhisek Dari Vs Tapan Kumar Dari