Disposed¶21

Partha Pratim Hazra v. Deepmala Bose

Review – Condonation of delay

Calcutta HC8 May 2026RVW/72/2026

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court at Calcutta, Appellate Side, Special Civil Jurisdiction; R.V.W. 72 of 2026 (I.A. No.: CAN 1 of 2026, CAN 2 of 2026); Partha Pratim Hazra v. Deepmala Bose; decided 08.05.2026 by Shampa Sarkar, J.; review application; condonation of delay of 43 days; examination of child's mental health at AIIMS Bhubaneswar; extension of time; Medical Board; summer vacation May 25 to June 3, 2026; Christmas Vacation.

What did the court decide?

Delay of 43 days in filing the review application condoned (CAN 1 of 2026 allowed); time for examination of the mental health of the child extended to the summer vacation between May 25 to June 3, 2026; AIIMS, Bhubaneswar requested to make arrangements and its Director requested to constitute a Medical Board. ¶21

Partha Pratim Hazra Vs Deepmala Bose — Calcutta HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

08.05.2026 Court No. 12 Item No. 01 Sandip

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA SPECIAL CIVIL JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE

¶3

R.V.W. 72 of 2026 I.A. No : CAN 1 of 2026 CAN 2 of 2026

¶4

Partha Pratim Hazra

¶5

-Versus-

¶6

Deepmala Bose

¶7

Mr. Pourush Bandyopadhyay, Ms. Kaushani Dey

¶8

…..for the applicant/petitioner Mr. Aniruddha Chatterjee, Sr. Adv., Mr. Rajdeep Bhattacharya, Mr. Tanmay Mukherjee, Mr. Sauradeep Dutta, Mr. Himadree Ghosh

¶9

….for the opposite party

¶10

CAN 1 of 2026, is an application for condonation of delay of 43 days in filing the review application.

¶11

Upon considering the averments in Paragraphs 16 to 19, this Court is satisfied that the delay has been sufficiently explained.

¶12

1. Accordingly, CAN 1 of 2026 is allowed.

¶13

1. The delay is condoned.

¶14

1. The review application is registered.

¶15

The only reason for seeking review of the order is for extension of time for examination of the mental health of the child at AIIMS, Bhubaneswar.

¶16

It is submitted on behalf of the applicant, who is the father of the child that, due to some procedural difficulties AIIMS, Bhubaneswar, did not grant appointment to him for examination of his child. Under such

¶17

¶18

circumstances, the time prescribed by this Court for examination of the child, that is, during the Christmas Vacation could not be adhered to. The applicant is interested to comply with the order of this Court but seeks extension of time on account of delay.

¶19

Under such circumstances, the order continues to remain the same, with the exception that, the examination of the mental health of the child which was directed to be held during the Christmas Vacation will be held during the summer vacation between May 25 to June 3, 2026 and this court requests AIIMS, Bhubaneswar to make the arrangements.

¶20

The Director of AIIMS, Bhubaneswar is requested to take steps for constitution of a Medical Board for the purpose.

¶21

Accordingly, the review application is disposed of.

¶22

Urgent photostat certified copy of the order, if applied for, be given to the parties, upon usual undertakings.

¶23

(Shampa Sarkar, J.)

Partha Pratim Hazra v. Deepmala Bose

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Partha Pratim Hazra v. Deepmala Bose

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

Tata Steel Limited Vs Msp Sponge Iron Limited

West Bengal Mineral Development and Trading Corporation Ltd. Vs Trans Damodar Coal Mining Pvt. Ltd.

Trans Damodar Coal Mining Pvt. Ltd. Vs West Bengal Mineral Development and Trading Corporation Ltd.

Wajda Enam Ansari Vs MD Jamaluddin

Janhabi Pan Vs Sk Sajahan Station Manager Chandrakona Town Customer Care Wbsedcl

Md. Sulaiman Laskar Vs Office of the Usthi Gram Panchayet at Deula, Repd by Its Pradhan Josthna Hazra and Ors.