Allowed¶14

Sunanda Chatterjee & Anr. v. Braja Mohan Das & Anr.

Calcutta HC3 Oct 2024SAT/46/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Second appeal restoration; recall of dismissal-for-default order dated October 3, 2024; sufficient cause for non-appearance; abatement against deceased respondent no. 1; substitution application with condonation of delay; leave granted; revival of interim order; placement before learned Single Judge; SAT 46 of 2017; CAN 3 of 2025; no order as to costs; special messenger costs for trial court records.

What did the court decide?

Application CAN 3 of 2025 allowed; order dated October 3, 2024 recalled; SAT 46 of 2017 restored to its original file and number; interim order revived; leave granted to the appellants to seek substitution after setting aside abatement against respondent no. 1; no order as to costs; trial court records to be brought by special messenger with costs deposited by the appellants within January 9, 2026. ¶14

Sunanda Chatterjee & Anr. Vs Braja Mohan Das & Anr. — Calcutta HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶14

Issue for consideration

Whether the order dated October 3, 2024 dismissing SAT 46 of 2017 for default ought to be recalled, the appellants having shown sufficient cause for their non-appearance on the relevant date. +1 more

¶12

Court's answer

Sufficient explanation exists for the appellants' absence; CAN 3 of 2025 is allowed, recalling the order dated October 3, 2024 insofar as SAT 46 of 2017 was dismissed for non-appearance of the appellants and the interim order then subsisting was vacated.

¶12

Ratio / Principle

The observation that the appeal has abated against respondent no. 1 is retained, subject to the appellants filing an appropriate application for substitution after setting aside abatement on condonation of delay in respect of the deceased respondent no. 1, for which leave is granted.

¶13

Key takeaways

SAT 46 of 2017 is restored to its original file and number.ratio¶14
The interim order subsisting as on the date of the order dated October 3, 2024 is revived as on today.ratio¶16
The matter is to be placed before the appropriate learned Single Judge as and when the application for substitution after setting aside abatement on condonation of delay is filed, subject to the convenience of such Bench.ratio

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Restoration - Second appeal (SAT 46 of 2017) dismissed for default by a coordinate Bench on October 3, 2024 for non-appearance of the appellants and respondent no. 2, interim order vacated and appeal observed to be abated against respondent no. 1 - Recall application (CAN 3 of 2025) allowed, sufficient explanation found for the appellants' absence - Order recalled, appeal restored to its original file and number, and interim order revived - Abatement against the deceased respondent no. 1 retained, subject to the appellants filing an application for substitution after setting aside abatement on condonation of delay, for which leave granted - Matter to be placed before the appropriate learned Single Judge upon such filing - No order as to costs - Trial court records to be brought by special messenger, costs thereof to be deposited by the appellants within January 9, 2026.

¶1

AD -3 Ct No.16 24.12.2025 (SSS)

¶2

SAT 46 of 2017 With CAN 3 of 2025

¶3

Smt. Sunanda Chatterjee and Anr. Vs. Braja Mohan Das and Anr.

¶4

Mr. Anjan Biswas, Mr. Arijit Chatterjee, Ms. Neha Biswas, Advs. ….For the appellants.

¶5

None appears, despite service, on behalf of

¶6

the respondents at the time of call.

¶7

Affidavit-of-service filed today be kept on record.

¶8

By an order dated October 3, 2024, a coordinate Bench of this Court had dismissed the appeal in view of the appellants and the respondent no. 2 not being represented on the said date, simultaneously vacating the interim order as well as observing that the appeal was treated to be abated as against respondent no. 1. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that after the admission of the appeal, the appellants had no reason to apprehend that the matter would again be listed before a Division Bench, since the established practice of this court

¶9

¶10

is that after admission, a second appeal and the connected applications are heard by a learned Single Judge.

¶11

Secondly, since no application for substitution after setting aside abatement on condonation of delay could be taken out on the demise of respondent no. 1 due to the appeal itself having been dismissed for default, leave is sought by the appellants to file such application upon recall of the order.

¶12

We find sufficient explanation for the absence of the appellants on the relevant date from the application bearing CAN 3 of 2025. Accordingly, CAN 3 of 2025 is allowed, thereby recalling the order dated October 3, 2024 inasmuch as SAT 46 of 2017 was dismissed for non-appearance of the appellants and the interim order then subsisting being vacated.

¶13

However, we retain the observation in the said order to the effect that the appeal has abated as against respondent no. 1, subject to the appellants filing an appropriate application for substitution after setting aside abatement on condonation of delay in respect of the said deceased respondent no. 1, for which leave is hereby granted to the appellants.

¶14

Accordingly, SAT 46 of 2017 is restored to its original file and number. The interim order

¶15

¶16

subsisting as on the date of the order dated October 3, 2024 is revived as on today.

¶17

The matter be placed before the appropriate learned Single Judge as and when an application for substitution after setting aside abatement on condonation of delay is filed, subject to the convenience of such Bench.

¶18

There will be no order as to costs.

¶19

The trial court records shall be brought again by special messenger, costs of which shall be deposited by the appellants within January 9, 2026.

¶20

(Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J.)

¶21

(Supratim Bhattacharya, J.)

Sunanda Chatterjee & Anr. v. Braja Mohan Das & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sunanda Chatterjee & Anr. v. Braja Mohan Das & 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 Naser & Anr. Vs Sk Hatem & Ors.

Anwar Tarikh Vs Bulti Begum

Uttam Kumar Roy and Anr. Vs Prodip Kumar Roy and Anr.