Dismissed¶8

Sulekha Sen and Anr. v. Soumitra Sen and Ors.

Appellate practice – withdrawal of appeal

Calcutta HC1 Apr 2025FAT/63/2025

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Withdrawal of appeal; appeal filed in wrong court; pecuniary jurisdiction; Stamp Reporter's report; F.A.T. 63 of 2025 with CAN 1 of 2025 dismissed as withdrawn; liberty to file afresh on self-same grounds before appropriate court; refund/exemption of court fees already deposited; return of certified copies of impugned judgment and decree; coram Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J. and Uday Kumar, J.; decided 1st April, 2025.

What did the court decide?

Appeal F.A.T. 63 of 2025 and CAN 1 of 2025 dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty to file afresh on the self-same grounds before the appropriate court having pecuniary jurisdiction; leave to take back certified copies of the impugned judgment and decree upon furnishing photocopies, and leave to apply for exemption of the court fees already deposited. ¶8

Sulekha Sen and Anr. Vs Soumitra Sen and Ors. — Calcutta HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶8

Issue for consideration

Whether the appeal, conceded by counsel to have been filed before this court erroneously and found by the Stamp Reporter to have been filed wrongly on account of pecuniary jurisdiction, may be dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file afresh before the appropriate court.

¶6

Court's answer

The appeal was filed wrongly before this court taking into account the pecuniary jurisdiction, as found from the report of the Stamp Reporter.

¶7

Ratio / Principle

F.A.T. 63 of 2025 along with CAN 1 of 2025 are dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty to the appellants to file afresh on the self-same grounds before the appropriate court having pecuniary jurisdiction.

¶8

Key takeaways

Leave is granted to the learned Advocate-on-record for the appellants to take back the certified copies of the impugned judgment and decree upon furnishing photocopies for the records.ratio¶9
Leave is granted to the appellants to file an appropriate application before the court where the appeal shall now be presented for exemption of the court fees already deposited in connection with the present appeal.ratio¶11

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Appellate practice – withdrawal of appeal – appeal filed before wrong forum on account of pecuniary jurisdiction. Counsel for the appellants submitted that the appeal had been filed before the court erroneously and sought its withdrawal; the Stamp Reporter's report confirmed that the appeal was filed wrongly taking into account the pecuniary jurisdiction. The court dismissed F.A.T. 63 of 2025 along with CAN 1 of 2025 as withdrawn, granting liberty to the appellants to file afresh on the self-same grounds before the appropriate court having pecuniary jurisdiction. Leave was granted to the Advocate-on-record to take back the certified copies of the impugned judgment and decree upon furnishing photocopies for the records, and to the appellants to seek exemption of the court fees already deposited before the forum where the appeal shall now be presented.

Sulekha Sen and Anr. v. Soumitra Sen and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sulekha Sen and Anr. v. Soumitra Sen and Ors.

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

Raj Kumar Ghosh Vs Uday Majumdar & Ors.

Uday Ghosh @ Uday Chand Ghosh & Ors. Vs Rajkumar Ghosh & Ors.

Pawan Ghai Vs Punit Ghai

Shyamali Biswas Vs Binay Biswas

Pranati Maity Vs Kajal Baran Bera & Ors.

Karuna Bar and Ors. Vs Prashanta Kr. Bar and Ors.