Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Sg Ct. 8 Manoj Kumar Agarwal vs Om Prakash Brajabasi & Anr on 24 August, 2022
FA 262 of 2012
Item-13. CAN 1 of 2012 (old CAN 9140 of 2012)
24-08-2022
CAN 2 of 2015 (old CAN 5477 of 2015)
sg Ct. 8 Manoj Kumar Agarwal
Versus
Om Prakash Brajabasi & Anr.
Mr. Sounak Bhattacharyya, Adv.
Mr. Sounak Mondal, Adv.
... for the appellant
Mr. Debashis Chakraborty, Adv.
...for the respondent no.1
In Re: CAN 2 of 2015 (old CAN 5477 of 2015)
This is an application for recording the factum of death of
the respondent no.2.
It is submitted that the respondent no.2 died on 21 st March,
2014 intestate leaving behind the respondent no.1 as his sole heir
and legal representative.
The learned Counsel for the respondent no.1 submits that
the statement made by the applicant with regard to succession is
correct.
In view thereof, this application is allowed. CAN 2 of 2015
(old CAN 5477 of 2015) is, thus, disposed of.
The department is directed to record the death of the
respondent no.2 and amend the cause title of the memorandum of
appeal within ten days from date.
In Re: CAN 1 of 2012 (old CAN 9140 of 2012)
This is an application for injunction restraining the
respondent from alienating and/or encumbering the property in
question.
On 3rd June, 2013 a coordinate Bench, being prima facie
satisfied with the merits of the appeal, restrained the
defendants/opposite parties from transferring, alienating,
encumbering or changing the nature and character of the suit
property or creating third party interest in the suit property for a
period of six weeks from date or until further orders, whichever is
earlier. The said order, however, was not extended till date after it
had expired.
The learned Counsel for the sole respondent submits that he
is residing in the said premises and he has no desire to sell the said
property. He further submits that he is still in occupation of the
property in question.
Under such circumstances, we feel that the appeal should be
heard out as expeditiously as possible.
LCR has already arrived.
Mr. Sounak Bhattacharya, learned Counsel appearing on
behalf of the appellant submits that no notice of arrival of LCR
has been received by him from the department.
However, since it is brought to our notice that LCR has
arrived, the department is directed to examine the LCR. There
may not be any requirement to serve any notice of arrival of LCR
although, we feel that the department ought to have intimated Mr.
Bhattacharya after LCR had arrived.
Be that as it may, the appellant shall prepare requisite
numbers of informal paper books - printed, typewritten or
cyclostyled, out of Court, as the case may be, within a period of
six weeks from date and shall include all the documents which
form part of the record and reflected in the judgment impugned in
the instant appeal.
All formalities including the filing of appellant's declaration
are dispensed with.
The appeal shall be listed in the combined monthly list of
November, 2022.
A copy of the paper book shall be served upon the learned
Advocate representing the respondent sufficiently in advance.
The service of notice of appeal is waived by Mr. Debashis
Chakraborty, Advocate.
The appeal is otherwise ready as regards service.
CAN 1 of 2012 (old CAN 9140 of 2012) is, accordingly,
disposed of.
(Siddhartha Roy Chowdhury, J.) (Soumen Sen, J.)
