Disposed¶11

M/S. Chittaranjan Mistanna Bhandar Pvt. Ltd. v. Monimala Dey and Ors.

Calcutta HC18 Sept 2025CO/3396/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Partition Act Section 4; stranger purchaser; dwelling house; undivided family; maintainability objection; application kept in abeyance till trial; Article 227 Constitution of India; City Civil Court at Calcutta; Title Suit No. 3395 of 2008; CO 3396 of 2025; Babulal v. Habibnoor Khan (2000) 5 SCC 662; expedited disposal within one year; Hiranmay Bhattacharyya, J.; 18.09.2025.

What did the court decide?

CO 3396 of 2025 disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to raise its objection regarding the maintainability of the Section 4 Partition Act application at the appropriate stage, the trial Judge to consider any such objection afresh without being swayed by earlier observations; trial court requested to conclude the suit preferably within one year of readiness for hearing. ¶11

M/S. Chittaranjan Mistanna Bhandar Pvt. Ltd. Vs… — Writ and Judicial Review | Calcutta HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶11

Issue for consideration

Whether the application under Section 4 of the Partition Act filed by the plaintiffs is maintainable, given the petitioner's contention that Section 4 applies where stranger purchasers purchase a share in a dwelling house belonging to an undivided family and then sue for partition. +1 more

¶7

Court's answer

Liberty was given to the petitioner to raise an objection with regard to the maintainability of the application under Section 4 of the Partition Act at the appropriate stage; if raised, the learned trial Judge shall consider it without being swayed by the observations made in the impugned order as well as in this order.

¶11

Ratio / Principle

Because the plaintiffs' application under Section 4 of the Partition Act had been kept in abeyance till the conclusion of trial, this Court was not inclined to interfere with the impugned order.

¶8

Key takeaways

The Court did not interfere, at this stage, with the observations of the learned trial Judge on the applicability of the provisions of Section 4 of the Partition Act to the facts of the case, leaving that question for the appropriate stage.ratio¶10
The learned Judge, City Civil Court at Calcutta was requested to endeavour to dispose of Title Suit No. 3395 of 2008 as expeditiously as possible, preferably within one year from the date the suit is made ready for hearing, without granting unnecessary adjournments, given the pendency since 2008.ratio¶12

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Application under Article 227 of the Constitution by the 5th defendant (M/s. Chittaranjan Mistanna Bhandar Pvt. Ltd.) against Order No. 116 dated 19.08.2025 of the learned Judge, City Civil Court at Calcutta in Title Suit No. 3395 of 2008, whereby the plaintiffs' application under Section 4 of the Partition Act was to be considered at the time of trial and judgment. Finding that the Section 4 application had been kept in abeyance till the conclusion of trial, the Court declined to interfere and left open the question of the applicability/maintainability of Section 4 for the appropriate stage, disposing of CO 3396 of 2025 with liberty to the petitioner to press its (already-filed) maintainability objection; the trial Judge is to consider such objection without being swayed by the observations in the impugned order or this order. The trial court was further requested to dispose of the suit, pending since 2008, preferably within one year of its readiness for hearing, without unnecessary adjournments. Counsel for the petitioner had invoked Babulal v. Habibnoor Khan (2000) 5 SCC 662, but the Court did not engage with that precedent.

¶1

17 18.09. CO 3396 of 2025 2025 M/s. Chittaranjan Mistanna Bhandar Pvt. Ltd. Ct. No. 06 Vs.

¶2

Ab Smt. Monimala Dey and others.

¶3

---------------

¶4

Mr. Jahar Chakrabarty, Mr. Anirban Ray, Mr. Shubham Khan. … for the petitioner.

¶5

This application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is at the instance of 5^th defendant and is directed against an order being 116 dated 19^th August 2025 passed by the learned Judge, City Civil Court at Calcutta in Title Suit No. 3395 of 2008.

¶6

By the order impugned, the learned trial Judge observed that the application under Section 4 of the Partition Act filed by the plaintiffs will be taken up for consideration at the time of trial and passing of judgment.

¶7

Mr. Chakrabarty, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the provisions of Section 4 of the Partition Act shall apply in a situation where the stranger purchasers purchased a share in the dwelling house belonging to the undivided family and then sues for partition. In support of such contention, Mr. Chakrabarty relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court in case of Babulal vs. Habibnoor Khan (Dead) by LRS. and others , reported in (2000) 5 SCC 662 . He submits the application under Section 4 of the Partition Act is not maintainable in the eye of law.

¶8

After going through the order impugned, this Court finds that the said application has been kept in abeyance till the conclusion of trial. For such reason, this Court is not inclined to interfere with

¶9

¶10

the observations made by the learned trial Judge in the order impugned in so far as the applicability of the provisions of Section 4 of the Partition Act to the facts of the case on hand is concerned at this stage. 5. Faced with such situation, Mr. Chakrabarty submits that liberty be given to the petitioner to raise objection with regard to the maintainability of the application under Section 4 of the Partition Act at the appropriate stage. He further submits that the objection of the said application has already been filed by the petitioner in the said suit.

¶11

In the light of the submissions made by the learned Advocate, CO 3396 of 2025 stands disposed of by giving a liberty to the petitioner to raise an objection with regard to the maintainability of the application under Section 4 of the Partition Act at the appropriate stage. If such objection is raised, the learned trial Judge shall consider the same without being swayed by the observations made in the impugned order as well as in this order.

¶12

The learned Judge, City Civil Court at Calcutta is requested to make an endeavour to dispose of the Title Suit no. 3395 of 2008 as expeditiously as possible but preferably within a period of one year from the date when the suit is made ready for hearing without granting any unnecessary adjournments to either of the parties.

¶13

The timeframe as fixed taking note of the fact that the suit is pending from the year 2008.

¶14

(Hiranmay Bhattacharyya, J.)

¶15

M/S. Chittaranjan Mistanna Bhandar Pvt. Ltd. v. Monimala Dey and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S. Chittaranjan Mistanna Bhandar Pvt. Ltd. v. Monimala Dey and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Abhi Bhattacharjee Vs Payal Bhattacharjee Nee Bannerjee

Bijay Kr Maity and Anr. Vs Gauranga Mal and Ors.

Jyotindra Nath Ghosh and Ors. Vs Jagachha Bayam Samity

Dilip Barma and Anr. Vs M/S Gangaram and Sons (Financiers) Pvt. Ltd.

Bishnu Shankar Chakraborty and Anr. Vs Subhra Chakraborty and Ors.

Bishnu Shankar Chakraborty and Ors. Vs Subhra Chakraborty and Ors.