Dismissed¶11

Shambhu Nath Bhattacharya v. Gobinda Bhattacharya and Ors.

Calcutta HC5 Aug 2024CO/550/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Calcutta HC, C.O. 550 of 2024, decided 05.08.2024, Biswajit Basu, J. Article 227 petition by plaintiff challenging Trial Court's acceptance (with Rs. 1,000/- costs) of defendants' jointly filed, belated fresh written statement in TS 571/2021 after permitting rectification of verification defects in defendant no.1's withdrawn written statement. No illegality/infirmity found in the Trial Judge's discretion; revision dismissed without costs. Keywords: Article 227, written statement, belated filing, verification defects, Civil Judge (JD) Baruipur.

What did the court decide?

None — C.O. 550 of 2024 dismissed without any order as to costs; the impugned order accepting the written statement was left uninterfered with. ¶11

Shambhu Nath Bhattacharya Vs Gobinda Bhattacharya… — Writ and Judicial Review | Calcutta HC (2024)

¶1

05.08.2024 (M/L-08) Ct.-19 (Susanta) IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CIVIL REVISIONAL JURISDICTION

¶2

C.O. 550 of 2024

¶3

Shambhu Nath Bhattacharya -VsSri Gobinda Bhattcharya & Ors. Mr. Sounak Bhattacharya, Mr. Sounak Mondal, Mr. Abhirup Halder,

¶4

… For the Petitioner.

¶5

The instant application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is at the instance of the Plaintiff in a suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction, and is directed against the Order No. 14 dated August 25, 2023 passed by the 2^nd Court of learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) at Baruipur, District: 24-Parganas (South) in the said suit being Title Suit No. 571 of 2021 .

¶6

The learned Trial judge by the order impugned has accepted the belatedly filed written statement subject to payment of costs of Rs. 1,000/- (Rupees one thousand).

¶7

Mr. Bhattacharya, learned advocate for the petitioner submits that the defendant no.1 earlier had filed a written statement but withdrew it, and subsequently, all the defendants jointly have filed a written statement changing the entire complexion of the earlier written statement filed by the defendant no.1 but the learned Trial Judge by the order impugned has accepted the same.

¶8

¶9

There were defects in verification of the written statement filed by the defendant no.1 earlier. The learned Trial Judge in exercise of his discretion has permitted the defendants to rectify the said defects and to file a fresh written statement; the defendants have availed the said permission.

¶10

This Court does not find any illegality and/or infirmity in exercise of such discretion by the learned Trial Judge warranting interference with the order impugned.

¶11

C.O. 550 of 2024 is thus dismissed without any order as to costs.

¶12

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

¶13

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

¶14

(Biswajit Basu, J.)

Shambhu Nath Bhattacharya v. Gobinda Bhattacharya and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shambhu Nath Bhattacharya v. Gobinda Bhattacharya and Ors.

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

Ratan Kumar Saha Vs Mira Rani Saha

Liaqat Ali Vs Tarique Aziz

Murli Dhar Dhyawala Vs the Bank of Rajasthan Ltd. and Ors.

Ajimunnesa @ Ajimunnessa Bibi and Others Vs Abdul Asraf @ Chandan and Others

Alo Rani Pal Vs Gopa Mukherjee Banerjee and Ors.

Manu Bittar Garai Alias Jhuma Bitter Garai Vs Subhendu Garai