Sri Tarapada Porel vs Nityananda Adhikari & Ors
2021 Latest Caselaw 1331 Cal

   11.
10.02.2021
  S.D.


                                  S.M.A.T. 17 of 2016
                                         With
                       CAN 1 of 2016 (Old CAN No. 11126 of 2016)
                       CAN 2 of 2017 (Old CAN No. 8315 of 2017)
                                      (Not found)

                                   Sri Tarapada Porel
                                           Vs.
                               Nityananda Adhikari & Ors.

                   Mr. Basudeb Gayen
                   Mr. S. Banerjee
                                               ...For the Appellant.

                   Ms. Sohini Chakraborty
                   Mr. Falguni Majhi
                            ...For the Respondent Nos. 1(a), 1(b), 2 & 4.

As per the report of the Stamp Reporter dated

23.11.2016, the instant appeal has been filed beyond the

period of time delayed by 2918 days and there is no

application for condonation of delay with the memo of

appeal.

It appears that the instant appeal has been directed

against the order rejecting the application under Section 5 of

Limitation Act resulting in dismissal of the Title Appeal by

the Appeal Court below against the judgment and decree

passed in title suit for declaration of permanent injunction. It

is reported that the instant appeal is wrongly classified and

instituted as S.M.A.T. instead of S.A.T. Accordingly, learned

Advocate on record is requested to rectify the classification so

as to enable the office to take steps for changing the

classification. Report on sufficiency of Court Fee Stamp paid

could not be furnished in absence of valuation statement in

the decree of Trial Court. Accordingly, sent down to the

learned Court below for necessary rectification. It is also

reported that the cause title reflects the respondent nos. 1 and

6 having died and their legal representatives having not been

impleaded as party respondents as there is no application

filed with the memo of appeal. The name of the respondent

no. 5 is stated to have been expunged. Accordingly, the

learned Advocate on record to do the needful by deleting the

name in the cause title of the memorandum of appeal.

Let the matter go out of the list for the time being.

(Shivakant Prasad, J.)