Dismissed¶18

Ananda Kuamr Khan v. Joydeb Chandra Khan and Ors.

Calcutta HC19 May 2026RVW/118/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Review of order dated 08-04-2026 in partition appeal F.A.T. 414 of 2025; maintainability of review under Order 47 CPC; objection to Commissioner of partition report; alleged suppression of prior Trial Court rejection order; abuse of process; final decree timeline reduced from six months to three months by consent; decided 19-05-2026; Bench: Rajasekhar Mantha, J. and Rai Chattopadhyay, J.; Appellant: Sri Ananda Kumar Khan; Respondents: Sri Joydeb Chandra Khan & Ors.

What did the court decide?

By consent of the parties, time to pass final decree modified from six months to three months; all connected pending applications disposed of; no order as to costs. ¶18

Ananda Kuamr Khan Vs Joydeb Chandra Khan and Ors. — Calcutta HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

19-05-2026 ct no. 13 Sl. 32 sp

¶2

RVW 118 of 2026 With CAN 1 of 2026 In F.A.T. 414 of 2025

¶3

Sri Ananda Kumar Khan

¶4

-Versus-

¶5

Sri Joydeb Chandra Khan & Ors.

¶6

Mr. Prasenjit Mukherjee, Mr. Saptarshi Chakraborty.

¶7

…for the appellant.

¶8

Ms. Shohini Chakraborty, Mr. Soyal Halder, Mr. Abul Mullick.

¶9

..for the respondent/defendant no. 1.

¶10

Review is sought of this Court’s order dated 8^th April, 2026.

¶11

It is submitted that the applicant/respondent in the appeal was not represented on the said day due to bereavement of his family.

¶12

Review is sought on the ground that the appellant was already permitted to file objection to the report of the Commissioner of partition which objection was formally rejected after a hearing by the Trial Court.

¶13

This fact according to the learned counsel for the review applicant has been suppressed by

¶14

¶15

the original appellant. It, however, appears that the said order rejecting the objection of the original appellant had formed part of the pleadings in the appeal and was duly considered by this Court. The said order at paragraph no. 12 was passed in the interest of justice. It further transpires that after the order was passed by this Court of which review is sought, both parties were duly heard on the objection filed by the appellant and a reasoned order was passed by the Trial Court.

¶16

In the backdrop of the above, this Court is of the clear and unequivocal view that the application for review is not maintainable within the four corners of Order 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

¶17