Disposed¶13

Pradip Dasgupta @ Pradip Kumar Dasgupta v. Srilekha Chatterjee and Ors.

Calcutta HC1 Jul 2026CO/2029/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Section 10 CPC stay of suit refused; res sub judice / lis pendens plea fails where appeal dismissed for default and not restored; Article 227 supervisory revision; eviction of licensee suit; identity of suit property in schedules of two plaints held different, finding not perverse; cogent reasons of trial judge upheld; Title Suit No. 35 of 2019; Title Appeal No. 25 of 2018 dismissed for default; restoration application pending; Civil Judge (Junior Division), 1st Court at Sealdah; CO 2029 of 2026; Hiranmay Bhattacharyya, J.; revisional application disposed of, no interference.

What did the court decide?

No interference with the impugned order; the civil revisional application stands disposed of. ¶13

Pradip Dasgupta @ Pradip Kumar Dasgupta Vs… — Writ and Judicial Review | Calcutta HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No interference with the impugned order; the civil revisional application stands disposed of.

¶13

Issue for consideration

Whether the learned Civil Judge's rejection of the petitioner's application under Section 10 of the Civil Procedure Code for stay of the suit for eviction of a licensee (Title Suit No. 35 of 2019), founded on the pendency of an appeal arising out of dismissal of the petitioner's title suit, warrants interference under Article 227 of the Constitution.

¶4

Court's answer

The learned trial judge's finding that the suit property mentioned in the schedule of the plaint of the two suits are different does not suffer from perversity.

¶11

Ratio / Principle

The learned Trial Judge assigned cogent reasons for rejecting the application under Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

¶12

Key takeaways

This Court finds no reason to interfere with the impugned order rejecting the Section 10 stay application.ratio¶12

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Civil revisional application under Article 227 of the Constitution by the defendant against Order No. 58 dated 4th June, 2026 of the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), 1st Court at Sealdah in Title Suit No. 35 of 2019, whereby his application under Section 10 of the Civil Procedure Code for stay of the suit for eviction of a licensee, instituted by the opposite parties, on the ground of pendency of an appeal (Title Appeal No. 25 of 2018) arising out of dismissal of his suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction, was rejected. During hearing it transpired that the appeal stood dismissed for default and, though a restoration application was pending, the appeal had not been restored to its original file and number; evidence in the eviction suit was complete and the Section 10 application had been filed on the date fixed for argument. Held: the trial judge's finding that the suit property in the schedules of the plaints of the two suits is different does not suffer from perversity, and cogent reasons were assigned for rejecting the stay application; the Court found no reason to interfere and disposed of the revisional application. (Hiranmay Bhattacharyya, J.)

¶1

Item- CO 2029 of 2026 9. 01-07-2026 Pradip Dasgupta @ Pradip Kumar Dasgupta Versus sg

¶2

Ct. 6 Srilekha Chatterjee & Ors. Mr. Rahul Karmakar Mr. Nirmalya Dutta Mr. Sounak Mukherya …for the petitioner Ms. Shabana Hasin …for the opposite parties

¶3

This instant application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is at the instance of the defendant and is directed against an order being No. 58 dated 4^th June, 2026 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), 1^st Court at Sealdah in Title Suit No. 35 of 2019.

¶4

By the order impugned the application under Section 10 of the Civil Procedure Code praying for stay of all further proceedings of the suit for eviction of a licensee, instituted by the opposite party, on the ground of pendency of an appeal arising out of an order of dismissal of a suit, filed by the petitioner, for declaration of title and permanent injunction stood rejected.

¶5

The learned Advocate appearing for the opposite parties submits that in the meantime, the said appeal being Title Appeal No. 25 of 2018 stood dismissed for default and there is no appeal in the eye of law at present.

¶6

In reply, Mr. Karmakar learned Advocate for the petitioner submits that an application for restoration of the Title Appeal is pending.

¶7

On a query of the Court, Mr. Karmakar, in his usual fairness, submits that the restoration application is pending

¶8

¶9

and the appeal has not yet been restored to its original file and number.

¶10

The evidence in the suit for eviction has been completed. It is not in dispute that the application under Section 10 of the Code was filed on the date fixed for argument.

¶11

The learned trial judge has arrived at a finding that the suit property as mentioned in the schedule of the plaint of two suits are different. Such finding does not suffer from perversity.

¶12

The learned Trial Judge has assigned cogent reason for rejecting the application under Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure. This Court does not find any reason in interfering with the said order.

¶13

Accordingly, this civil revisional application stands disposed of.

¶14

Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance of all requite formalities.

¶15

(Hiranmay Bhattacharyya, J.)

Pradip Dasgupta @ Pradip Kumar Dasgupta v. Srilekha Chatterjee and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pradip Dasgupta @ Pradip Kumar Dasgupta v. Srilekha Chatterjee and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Manoj Mondal Vs Subhendu Mondal and Ors.

Habibar Mallick Vs Sandip Ghosh

Barnali Poddar Vs Shree Chand Gupta and Anr.

Ashim Kumar Das and Ors. Vs Pratik Bhattacharya

Martin Burn Limited Vs Alexandra Occupiers Court Tenants and Association

Madan Mohan Biswas @ Modanmohan Biswas Vs Dibakar Biswas and Ors.