Appellant sought recall of an ex parte decree in a partition suit via a delayed Order IX Rule 13 application; the trial court refused. The Court upheld that decision, deeming summons served on refusal, and directed the partition proceedings toward the final decree.
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.
27-02-2026 ct no. 13 Sl. 5
sp
FMA 322 of 2009 With CAN 6 of 2026 With CAN 7 of 2026 Baidyanath Mandal
-Versus-
Kamini Mandal & Anr.
Mr. Ambu Bindu Chakraborty, Mr. Partha Sarathi Das.
…for the appellant.
CAN 7 of 2026.
condonation of delay of 628 days in filing CAN 6 of 2026.
advocate. The advocate engaged is also old and aged.
inclined to condone the delay in filing CAN 6 of 2026.
disposed of.
CAN 6 of 2026.
2
FMA 322 of 2009
3
4
proceed and consider passing of final decree as he may deem fit and proper.
(Rajasekhar Mantha, J.)
1 issue framed by the court
Should the trial court's refusal to entertain a delayed Order IX Rule 13 application to recall an ex parte decree be upheld?
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Baidyanath Mandal
Kamini Mandal
Kamini Mandal & Anr.
Rajasekhar Mantha
Md. Shabbar Rashidi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
