Hiranya Prova Aideo Vs Durga Das Banerjee and 3 Ors.

2:ON THE DEATH OF SIBA PRASAD GAUTAM BANERJEE HIS LEGAL HEIRS- SUDARSHAN BANERJEE S/O- LATE SIBA PRASAD BANERJEE R/O- PALTAN PUKUR GUWAHATI DIST. KAMRUP(M) ASSAM 3:JAYANTA BANERJEE S/O- LATE SIBA PRASAD BANERJEE R/O- PALTAN PUKUR GUWAHATI DIST. KAMRUP(M) ASSAM 4:BISWADEEP BANERJEE S/O- LATE SIBA PRASAD BANERJEE R/O- PALTAN PUKUR GUWAHATI DIST. KAMRUP(M) ASSAM

¶11

Page No.# 2/5

¶12

5:GAUTAM BANERJEE S/O- LATE SIBA PRASAD BANERJEE R/O- PALTAN PUKUR GUWAHATI DIST. KAMRUP(M) ASSAM 6:APU BANERJEE D/O- LATE SIBA PRASAD BANERJEE R/O- PALTAN PUKUR GUWAHATI DIST. KAMRUP(M) ASSAM 7:DIPU BAMNERJEE D/O- LATE SIBA PRASAD BANERJEE R/O- PALTAN PUKUR GUWAHATI DIST. KAMRUP(M) ASSAM 8:TUBLU BANERJEE D/O- LATE SIBA PRASAD BANERJEE R/O- PALTAN PUKUR GUWAHATI DIST. KAMRUP(M) ASSAM 9:TOPU BANERJEE D/O- LATE SIBA PRASAD BANERJEE R/O- PALTAN PUKUR GUWAHATI DIST. KAMRUP(M) ASSAM 10:ON THE DEATH OF KATAYANI DEVI HER LEGAL HEIRS PRADIP KUMAR CHATTERJEE S/O- KATAYANI DEVI R/O- ALLAHABAD (SHAHEGANJ) UTTAR PRADESH 11:ARUNA BANERJEE D/O- KATAYANI DEVI R/O- ALLAHABAD (SHAHEGANJ) UTTAR PRADESH 12:ON THE DEATH OF MADHUSUDHAN BANERJEE HIS LEGAL HEIRS SMTI ALPANA BANERJEE

¶13

Page No.# 3/5

¶14

W/O- LATE MADHUSUDHAN BANERJEE

¶15

R/O- REHABARI GUWAHATI-781007 KAMRUP(M) ASSAM 13:RAJIV BANERJEE S/O- LATE MADHUSUDHAN BANERJEE

¶16

R/O- REHABARI GUWAHATI-781007 KAMRUP(M) ASSAM

¶17

14:RAJAT BANERJEE S/O- LATE MADHUSUDHAN BANERJEE

¶18

R/O- REHABARI GUWAHATI-781007 KAMRUP(M) ASSA

¶19

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. B D DEKA, MR. M DAS,N CHAUDHURY,MR A BHATRA,MR A DEKA

¶20

Advocate for the Respondent : MR. A SANCHETI (R-6, 7, 8, 9, 13), MR. R C SANCHETI (R-6, 7, 8, 9, 13),MR S SANCHETI (R-6, 7, 8, 9, 13)

¶21

BEFORE

¶22

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ROBIN PHUKAN

¶23

ORDER

¶24

Date : 10.01.2025

¶25

Heard Mr. N. Chaudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. R.C. Sancheti, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 2(e) to 2(h) and 4 (b).

¶26

Office note dated 07.01.2025, indicates that notice issued to the respondent Nos. 1, 2(a), 2(b), 4(a) and 4(c) returned unserved with a report that the said respondents suffered demise and notice issued to respondent Nos.

¶27

Page No.# 4/5

¶28

2(c), 2(d), 2(f), 2(h), 3(a), 3(b), 4(a) and 4(c) returned with a remark ‘insufficient address’.

¶29

Mr. Sancheti, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 2(e) to 2(h) and 4(b) submits that as some of the respondents have already suffered demise and it will take time to implead their legal representatives and to proceed with the matter, however, this civil revision petition may be disposed of without serving notice upon the rest of the respondents in view of Rule 12 of Order 22 of the CPC, which provides that Rules 3, 4 and 8 shall apply to proceedings in execution of a decree or order, and that in view of the pendency of this petition and in view of the stay granted herein, the case could not be proceeded with and as a result, the respondents, who are the decree holders, are suffering a lot and therefore, Mr. Sancheti submits that the respondents have no objection in the event of the prayer, which is being made in this petition, is allowed.

¶30

Mr. Chaudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that if the respondents conceded to the prayer being made in this petition, then this petition may be disposed of by setting aside the impugned orders dated 16.06.2022 and 06.03.2023, passed by the learned Civil Judge No. 1, Kamrup(M), in Misc. (J) Case No. 79/2011, arising out of Title Execution Case No. 3/2009 (Title Suit No. 79/1986).

¶31

At this stage, Mr. Sancheti, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 2(e) to 2(h) and 4(b) submits that the purpose will be served if the main impugned order dated 06.03.2023, is set aside and quashed.

¶32

Having heard the submission of learned Advocates of both sides, I have carefully gone through the petition and the documents placed on record and also perused the impugned orders dated 16.06.2022 and 06.03.2023.

¶33

Page No.# 5/5

¶34

It is to be mentioned here that the respondents herein in Misc. (J) Case No. 79/2011, filed a petition, being petition No. 184/2023, under Order 26 Rule 1 and 4A, read with Section 151 of the CPC, whereby a prayer was made for appointing Commissioner for recording cross-examination of P.W.1 at her residence showing the ground that she is a lady of 76 years and has been suffering from various old age ailments. But, the learned Court below had dismissed the petition, vide impugned order dated 06.03.2023, on the ground of absence of justifiable reason.

¶35

Considering all the facts and circumstances as well as the submissions of learned Advocates of both the parties and as agreed upon, the impugned order dated 06.03.2023, stands set aside and quashed.

¶36

The parties are directed to appear before the learned trial Court on 24.02.2025, and on their appearance, the learned trial Court shall proceed with the matter in accordance with law.

¶37

In terms of above, this revision petition stands disposed of.

¶38

JUDGE

¶39

Comparing Assistant

Hiranya Prova Aideo v. Durga Das Banerjee and 3 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hiranya Prova Aideo v. Durga Das Banerjee and 3 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

Kingshuk Adhikari Vs Dalia Adhikari

Dr. Amrit Kumar Baruah Vs M/S Maeyes Private Limited and 2 Ors.

Atanu Mohan Saikia Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Sayad Jamal @ Surajmal @ Saidur Ali and 4 Ors. F

Himakshi Choudhury Vs Bhrigujit Choudhury (Sonti)

Dhiru Bharali Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors.