Ajit Kr. Das vs Minor Nirman Ghosh
2023 Latest Caselaw 445 Cal

16.01.2023
  Sl. No.07.
  List - D/L
  Mithun
 Ct.No.42                          SA 584 of 1993
                                      With
               CAN/2/2013(Old No: CAN/6959/2013), CAN/3/2022

                                          Ajit Kr. Das
                                               Vs.
                                       Minor Nirman Ghosh


                     Mr. Abhijit Ray, Adv.
                     Mr. Shubham Gupta, Adv.
                                           ... for respondent/applicant.

Though the instant application is captioned as

'recalling of the order' dated 10th July, 2019 passed by

this Court in S.A. No.584 of 1993, this is practically in

the nature of review.

It is submitted at the outset by the learned

Advocate for the appellant/opposite party that the

instant review is hopelessly barred by limitation.

However, this Court is not inclined to accept such

submission in view of the decision of the Hon'ble

Supreme Court in Suo moto Writ Petition (Civil) No.3 of

2020 wherein it is clearly observed:-

"2. In cases, where the limitation would have

expired during the period between 15th March, 2020 till

14th March, 2021, notwithstanding the actual balance

period of limitation remaining, all persons shall have a

limitation period of 90 days from 15 th March, 2021. In

the event the actual balance period of limitation

remaining, with effect from 15.03.2021, is greater than

90 days, that longer period shall apply."

The present petitioner has prayed for review of the

judgment passed by this Court on 10 th July, 2019 on the

ground that the petitioner purchased undivided share in

respect of the premises No.23, P.N. Chakraborty Lane

and therefore, without partition he cannot be evicted

even from the portion which is under the ownership of

Ajit Kumar Das.

The judgment dated 10th July, 2019 clearly stated

the story as to how premises No.23, P.N.Chakraborty

Lane was partitioned amongst its owners. It is also held

that the plaintiff No.1 relinquished his name for vacating

of the respondent after execution of agreement for sale

with the original tenant in respect of his allotted share in

the premises in suit.

Therefore, the decree passed by this Court by

virtue of the judgment in S.A.584 of 1993 is executable

in respect of Lot- 'A' property only as described in the

judgment of the aforesaid appeal.

Therefore, I do not find any merit in the instant

application and accordingly, the instant application is

dismissed on contest.

(Bibek Chaudhuri, J)