Dismissed¶15

Niranjan Kumar Mondal v. Aditya Kumar Das

Calcutta HC7 Jul 2026CO/4350/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Pleader Commissioner appointment for inspection; challenge to ex parte trial court order dated 01.12.2021; concealment of material facts; misrepresentation before Coordinate Bench on 04.12.2024 that no commission work held; short stay obtained thereon; trial court order dated 28.08.2023 showing Commissioner's report already submitted and recall application dismissed; apology by petitioner's counsel for lack of instructions; petition dismissed outrightly; petitioner cautioned; no order as to costs. CO 4350 of 2023, order dated 07.07.2026, Dinesh Kumar Sharma, J.

What did the court decide?

The present petition is dismissed outrightly since material facts were concealed from the Court. ¶15

Niranjan Kumar Mondal Vs Aditya Kumar Das — Calcutta HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

07.07.2026 Ct No.2 D/L 25 Mujahid

¶2

CO 4350 of 2023

¶3

Niranjan Kumar Mondal Vs. Sri Aditya Kumar Das

¶4

Mr. B.P. Mondal Mr. Sukanta Mondal

¶5

…for the petitioner

¶6

Mr. Saikat Sen Mr. Sagnik Chatterjee

¶7

…for the opposite party

¶8

1. Present petitioner has been filed challenging he order dated 1^st December, 2021 whereby the learned trial court appointed a learned Advocate as learned Pleader Commissioner for the purpose of inspection.

¶9

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this order was passed ex parte and, therefore, liable to be set aside.

¶10

3. However, learned counsel for the opposite party submits that the present petition has been filed with ulterior motive and the petitioner has concealed material facts. Learned counsel submits that the present petition was filed on 13^th December, 2023 and when the matter was taken up for hearing by the Coordinate Bench of this Court on 4^th December, 2024, learned counsel for the petitioner made a statement that no commission work has yet been

¶11

¶12

held. Learned counsel submits that on this misrepresentation, a short stay was grated.

¶13

4. Learned counsel for the opposite party submits that this statement was false on the face of it. Learned counsel has produced a copy of the order of the learned trial court dated 28^th August, 2023, which clearly shows that the commissioner had already submitted his report. Learned counsel further submits that against the impugned order dated 1^st December, 2021, the petitioner/defendant had moved an application for recall of the order and the same was dismissed by the learned trial court on 28^th August, 2023. Learned counsel submits that this fact was also not disclosed before this Court.

¶14

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he was not instructed by the client and renders apology.

¶15

6. Since the material facts have been concealed, the Court considers that the present petition is liable to be dismissed outrightly.

¶16

7. Petitioner is directed to be careful in future.

¶17

8. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶18

9. All parties shall act in terms of server copy of the order downloaded from the official website of this Court.

¶19

(Dinesh Kumar Sharma, J.)