Kajal Majumdar vs Samina Bibi & Others
2022 Latest Caselaw 5912 Cal

25.08.2022
Item No. 2.
Court No.6.
   AB
                                 M.A.T. 1342 of 2022
                                         With
                                  I A CAN 1 of 2022
                                  I A CAN 2 of 2022

                                Kajal Majumdar
                                       Vs
                              Samina Bibi & Others

                    Mr. Arindam Banerjee,
                    Ms. Arpita Saha       ...for the Appellant.

                    Mr. Achintya Kr. Banerjee,
                    Mr. Debangshu Mandal ...for the K.M.C.

                    Mr. Tapas Dutta ....for the Respondent No.1 /

Writ Petitioner.

By consent of the parties, the appeal and the

applications are taken up for hearing together.

In re : IA CAN 1 of 2022

This is an application for condonation of delay of

27 days in filing the appeal. Causes shown being

sufficient, the delay is condoned.

I A CAN 1 of 2022 is, accordingly, disposed of.

In re : MAT 1342 of 2022, IA CAN 2 of 2022

A Judgment and Order dated June 6, 2022 is

under challenge in this appeal. By the said order, the

learned Single Judge has directed immediate

implementation of an order of the Municipal Building

Tribunal passed on December 9, 2019, directing

demolition of the appellant's building.

It is submitted on behalf of the appellant that

the appellant had engaged a learned Advocate to

contest the writ petition in which the impugned order

was passed and the appellant was all through under

the impression that her interest is being looked after

by her Advocate. From time to time, she enquired from

her Advocate as regards the status of the case and she

was assured that the case has not yet been heard.

Suddenly, a group of persons came from Kolkata

Municipal Corporation and on the strength of the

impugned order, demolished part of her building.

Today, 11.00 a.m. is the time fixed for demolition of

the remainder of the building. Hence, this urgent

appeal.

We notice that the appellant was not

represented before the learned Single Judge on the day

the impugned order was passed. The appellant says

that she was under the bona fide belief that her

Advocate would protect her interest. However, it

transpires that her Advocate passed away in May,

2022, and hence, her case went un-represented.

We are not inclined to go into the merits of the

case. The appellant may approach the learned Single

Judge with an appropriate application explaining her

absence on the day the impugned order was passed. If

such an application is made, the learned Judge is

requested to decide the same in accordance with law.

Only to grant a breathing space to the appellant,

let the demolition not be carried out for a fortnight

from date.

Since we have not called for affidavits, the

allegations in the stay application are deemed not to

be admitted by the respondents.

MAT No.1342 of 2022 stands disposed of along

with IA CAN 2 of 2022.

Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if

applied for, be supplied expeditiously after compliance

with all the necessary formalities.

(Rai Chattopadhyay, J.) (Arijit Banerjee, J.)