Appeal against a decree for eviction lacking a direction to hand over peaceful possession. Respondents admitted the plaintiff was in occupation, having vacated. The court held the decree satisfied as to possession, did not interfere with it, and permitted execution of its monetary component.
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.
Form No.J(2)
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Civil Appellate Jurisdiction Appellate Side
Present : The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya &
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Uday Kumar
FA No. 75 of 2022
Smt. Rooplekha Roy
-vs-
Nava Nalanda Primary School and another
For the appellant : Mr. Aniruddha Mitra, Mr. T. K. Sen, Mr. Aditya Chakraborty, Mr. Anirban Ghosh
For the respondents : Mr. Aniruddha Chatterjee, Mr. Uddipan Banerjee.
Heard on : November 6, 2024. Judgment on : November 6, 2024.
: Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J.
obtained a decree in terms of the reliefs sought in the plaint in
2
a suit, inter alia , for eviction, the impugned decree does not carry any direction to the defendants/respondents to hand over peaceful and vacant possession of the suit premises in favour of the plaintiff, thus necessitating the present appeal.
3
I agree.
( Uday Kumar, J .) ( Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J .)
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the decree for eviction required an express direction to hand over peaceful vacant possession to the plaintiff.
Smt. Rooplekha Roy
Nava Nalanda Primary School and another
Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya
Uday Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
