Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Amina Bibi & Ors vs Ahadali Mondal & Ors on 20 January, 2021
12.
20.01.2021
S.D.
S.A.T. 285 of 2008
With
CAN 1 of 2008 (Old CAN No. 5171 of 2008)
CAN 2 of 2008 (Old CAN No. 9585 of 2008)
CAN 3 of 2009 (Old CAN No. 5696 of 2009)
CAN 4 of 2016 (Old CAN No. 1450 of 2016)
(Not found)
CAN 5 of 2016 (Old CAN No. 1451 of 2016)
(Not found)
CAN 6 of 2018 (Old CAN No. 1124 of 2018)
(Not found)
Amina Bibi & Ors.
Vs.
Ahadali Mondal & Ors.
Mr. Sadhan Kumar Halder
....For the Appellants.
In re: CAN 2 of 2008 (Old CAN No. 9585 of 2008)
This is an application for substitution. There is no
mention in the application as to when the opposite party no. 1
Ahadali Mondal, 2(2Ka) Necharan Bibi, 15(9) Sukuman Bibi
and 9(3) Archha Bibi died. That apart there is no annexure to
the application to show that the letter received by learned
Advocate bears postal remark 'deceased'.
Therefore, such an application cannot be considered for
substitution.
Hence, the application being CAN 2 of 2008 (Old CAN
No. 9585 of 2008) is rejected, however, with liberty to learned
Advocate on Record for the appellants to file fresh
application with the correct facts and figure as to the death of
the deceased parties and their heirs.
In re: CAN 3 of 2009 (Old CAN No. 5696 of 2009)
This is an application for substitution of heirs of
deceased opposite party no. 15.
It is submitted that during the pendency of the appeal,
the opposite party no. 15, Anwar Mondal, son of late Sahadat
Mondal died intestate on 18.6.2009 leaving behind his heirs as
per the names set out in paragraph 3 of the application who
are major, sui-juris and of sound mind and the right to sue-
still survives.
The application is filed within time. Therefore, let the
names of the heirs of the deceased opposite party no. 15,
Anwar Mondal be substituted in his place and stead in the
cause title.
Department is directed to note change in the cause title
and register the same.
Necessary amendment be carried out.
Thus, CAN Application being CAN 3 of 2009 (Old
CAN No. 5696 of 2009) is disposed of.
In re: CAN 1 of 2008 (Old CAN No. 5171 of 2008)
This is an application for stay of the operation of
judgment and decree dated 4.4.2008 and 25.4.2008
respectively passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior
Division, 2nd Court, Barasat, Nortn 24 Parganas in Title
Appeal No. 145 of 1991 and the Judgment and Decree dated
25.2.1991 and 12.3.1991 respectively passed by the learned
Munsiff, 1st Court, Basirhat, North 24 Parganas in Title Suit
No. 115 of 1982 inter alia on the grounds stated in the
application.
It appears from the order dated 4.8.2008 passed in CAN
5171 of 2008 arising out of S.A.T. No. 285 of 2008 that the
Hon'ble Division Bench while admitting the appeal
formulated substantial questions of law and the parties were
directed to maintain status quo as regards the nature and
character of the property as well as the possession as on date.
It signifies that the parties have already been directed to
maintain status quo in respect of the property in the suit.
Therefore, this application be disposed of with a similar
direction that the parties do maintain the status quo till the
disposal of the appeal. However, this order is made without
prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties to the
suit.
Thus, CAN 1 of 2008 (Old CAN No. 5171 of 2008) is
disposed of.
Let S.A.T. 285 of 2008 including the applications being
CAN 4 of 2016 (Old CAN No. 1450 of 2016), CAN 5 of 2016
(Old CAN No. 1451 of 2016) and CAN 6 of 2018 (Old CAN
No. 1124 of 2018) appear two weeks hence.
Department is directed to place those CAN applications
in the case record in the meantime.
(Shivakant Prasad, J.)
