Subhransu Roy & Anr vs Ashok Roy & Ors
2022 Latest Caselaw 4082 Cal

FMA 2664 of 2007 Item 6.

08-07-2022

sg Ct. 8 Subhransu Roy & Anr.

Versus Ashok Roy & Ors.

(Through Video Conference)

The appellant is not represented.

The appeal is arising out of an judgment and order dated 10th

May, 2006 passed by the learned Judge, Small Causes Court at

Sealdah passed in Title Suit No. 6 of 2006, a suit for partition,

declaration, permanent injunction and accounts.

The record shows that although the appeal was filed in

August 2006 but no attempt was made to move the appeal.

The learned Judge, after consideration of the materials

available on record allowed the application for injunction in part

on contest. The opposite party nos. 1, 2 and 5 were restrained by

an order of injunction restraining them from transferring,

encumbering the scheudle A property till the disposal of the suit.

The learned Judge has prima facie held that excepting the

schedule A property the appellants have failed to establish any

right in respect of B schedule property. Insofar as the schedule B

property is concerned, the learned Trial Judge has accepted the

contention of the opposite parties that one Sudhangshu Kr. Roy

was the exclusive allottee of the said plot and he had partly

constructed one building over the said land and Sudhangshu Kr.

Roy never had any right, title and interest over the said property.

We are not aware of the present status of the suit. This

interim order continues till this date. We do not find any reason to

interfere with the finding arrived at by the learned Trial Court on

10th May, 2006 in allowing the injunction application partly and

only in respect of schedule A property. The views expressed by

the learned Trial Judge were only prima facie and it should not

influence the final decision.

However, we find from the status report of the suit made

available to the Court that the suit was dismissed for default on

24th February, 2015 vide order No. 119.

In view of the aforesaid, the appeal stands dismissed.

However, there shall be no order as to costs.

(Siddhartha Roy Chowdhury, J.) (Soumen Sen, J.)