Disposed¶22

Ajay Amar Sinha and Another v. Debajyoti Mukhrjee and Another

Calcutta HC13 Nov 2025ALP/14/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Transfer of suit to High Court; Title Suit No. 252 of 2022; eviction suit; recovery of khas possession; delay in disposal of suit; non-acceptance of written statement application pending two years; Barasat; North 24 Parganas; Civil Judge (Senior Division) First Court; High Court at Calcutta Original Side; ALP No. 14 of 2025; Justice Shampa Dutt (Paul); directions to trial court; disposal within thirty days; completion of suit within one year; no unnecessary adjournments; 13 November 2025.

What did the court decide?

Transfer of the suit to the High Court was not granted; ALP No. 14 of 2025 stands disposed of with directions to the Trial Court to decide the non-acceptance-of-written-statement application within thirty days and to conclude the suit preferably within one year, without unnecessary adjournments. ¶22

Ajay Amar Sinha and Another Vs Debajyoti Mukhrjee and Another — Calcutta HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶22

Issue for consideration

Whether Title Suit No. 252 of 2022 should be transferred from the Court of the Civil Judge (Senior Division), First Court, Barasat, District North 24 Parganas to the High Court at Calcutta for immediate hearing. +1 more

¶12

Ratio / Principle

The petitioner has not made out a case for transfer of Title Suit No. 252 of 2022 to the High Court, although the Court is satisfied that hearing of the suit is being delayed because a simple application filed two years back has not been taken up for consideration.

¶18

Key takeaways

The Trial Court is directed to dispose of the plaintiff's application praying for non-acceptance of the written statement within thirty days from the date of communication of this order.ratio¶20
The Trial Court is further directed to dispose of the suit expeditiously in accordance with law without granting unnecessary adjournments to either side, preferably within one year from the date of communication of this order.ratio¶21

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

ALP No. 14 of 2025, High Court at Calcutta (Original Side, Extra Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction), Justice Shampa Dutt (Paul), decided 13 November 2025: transfer application by the plaintiffs of Title Suit No. 252 of 2022 (suit for eviction and recovery of khas possession, pending before the Civil Judge (Senior Division), First Court, Barasat, North 24 Parganas) seeking transfer of the suit to the High Court for immediate hearing owing to delay — disposed of. The Court held that the petitioner had not made out a case for transfer, while acknowledging that hearing of the suit was being delayed because the plaintiff's application for non-acceptance of the written statement had remained unconsidered for two years. The Trial Court was directed to dispose of that application within thirty days of communication of the order, and to conclude the suit expeditiously, preferably within one year, without granting unnecessary adjournments to either side.

¶1

OD-2 ORDER SHEET

¶2

ALP No. 14 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Extra Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE

¶3

AJAY AMAR SINHA & ANR.

¶4

-VS-

¶5

DEBAJYOTI MUKHRJEE & ANR.

¶6

BEFORE:

¶7

The Hon'ble JUSTICE SHAMPA DUTT (PAUL) Date:13^th November, 2025.

¶8

Appearance:

¶9

Mr. A. C. Kar, Adv. Mr. Anirban Kar, Adv. Mr. Munshi Ashiq Elahi, Adv. Mr. Rohit Mahato, Adv. …. for the Petitioners.

¶10

Mr. Rohit Mahato, Adv.

¶11

Mr. Debjit Mukherjee, Adv. Mr. Sumitava Chakraborty, Adv. Ms. Bratati Pramanick, Adv. Ms. Priyanaka Jana, Adv. ...for the Respondents.

¶12

The Court:-The application has been preferred praying for transfer of Title Suit No.252 of 2022 (Ajay Amar Sinha & Anr. –Versus- Debajyoti Mukherjee & Anr.) pending before the Learned Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division) First Court at Barasat, District-North 24 Parganas to this Hon’ble Court for immediate hearing.

¶13

On hearing the learned Counsel for the parties and on perusal on the materials on record, it appears that the plaintiff/petitioner is aggrieved with the delay in completion of the Title Suit No.252 of 2022.

¶14

It appears that the suit for eviction and recovery of khas possession was initiated in the year 2022. Written statement has been filed and it is submitted

¶15

¶16

by the learned Counsel appearing for the defendant-opposite party herein that the same has been filed within the period permitted under the Rules.

¶17

Learned Counsel for the petitioner further submits that his application praying for non acceptance of written statement is pending consideration for the last two years and the petitioner is being severely prejudiced.

¶18

Considering the said fact and on hearing the learned Counsel for the parties, this Court at this stage finds that the petitioner has not been able to make out the case for transfer though the petitioner has satisfied this Court that hearing of the suit is being delayed considering that a simple application filed two years back has not been taken up for consideration.

¶19

Learned Counsel for the defendant-opposite party submits that it is the plaintiff who has been delaying the case.

¶20

Considering the said fact and on hearing the learned Counsel for the parties, the learned Trial Court is directed to dispose of the application filed by the plaintiff praying for non acceptance of the written statement within thirty days from the date of communication of this order.

¶21

On hearing the parties, it is directed that the Trial Court shall also proceed to dispose of the suit in accordance with law expeditiously without granting any unnecessary adjournments to either sides, preferably within a period of one year from the date of communication of this order.

¶22

Accordingly, ALP No.14 of 2025 stands disposed of.

¶23

(SHAMPA DUTT (PAUL), J.)

¶24

Ajay Amar Sinha and Another v. Debajyoti Mukhrjee and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ajay Amar Sinha and Another v. Debajyoti Mukhrjee and Another

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

Nirmalendu Samanta Vs Amalendu Samanta

Kishaloy Ghosh Vs Dr Valsala Ghosh Menon

Sulekha Karati Vs Prafulla Kumar Ghosh

Ashik Sk. Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.

Dhananjay Barman Vs State of West Bengal & Ors.

M/S the Roy Brothers Registered Firm and Ors. Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.