Micky Metals Limited vs Sudip Tewary
2023 Latest Caselaw 1227 Cal/2

ODC-3
                    IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
                  ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
                             ORIGINAL SIDE

                              RVWO 34 OF 2022
                             IA NO. GA 1 OF 2022
                                    WITH
                                CS 23 OF 2021

                            IN THE MATTERS OF:
                           MICKY METALS LIMITED
                                    VS.
                               SUDIP TEWARY


BEFORE:
The Hon'ble JUSTICE ARINDAM MUKHERJEE

Date : 19th May, 2023.

Appearance:-

Mr. Rupak Ghosh, Adv.

Mr. Debraj Sahu, Adv.

Mr. Abhijit Sarkar, Adv.

For the plaintiff Mr. Rahul Karmakar, Adv.

Mr. Asif Sohail Tarafdar, Adv.

Mr. Rishabh Ahmad Khan, Adv.

Defendant/petitioner

THIS COURT: This is an application for review of the judgment and order

dated 15th November, 2022 passed in IA GA No.5 of 2022 filed in CS 23 of 2021.

The said judgment and order was passed after a contested hearing.

The defendant prayed for review of the judgment and order on the ground

that there are important and new matters of evidence which after exercise of due

diligence was not within the knowledge of the defendant and, as such, could not

be produced at the time when the judgment and order under review was passed.

Initially on 21st December, 2022 a stay of a portion of the judgment and

order dated 15th November, 2022 was passed so that in view of the default on the

part of the defendant in securing the amount directed as per the judgment and

order dated 15th November, 2022 did not tantamount to an automatic decree.

The matter was thereafter heard from time to time.

After hearing the parties and considering the materials on record, I do not

find that the grounds on which review is sought for is either on account of

discovery of due and important matters or evidence which after exercise of due

diligence was not within the knowledge of the defendant at the time when the

judgment and order under review was passed or could not be produced by the

defendant for any other reason. There is no additional evidence adduced to prima

facie persuade this Court to form a different opinion than that formed while

passing the judgment and order dated 15th November, 2022. There is no mistake

or apparent error on the face of record which persuades this Court to change its

view as expressed in the judgment and order dated 15th November, 2022. There

are no other reasons which can be construed to be sufficient to entitle the

defendant to obtain a review of the judgment and order.

In the facts and circumstances as aforesaid, the review application being

RVWO 34 of 2022 along with connected application being GA 1 of 2022 filed in

connection with the judgment and order dated 15th November, 2022 passed in IA

GA No. 5 of 2022 in CS 23 of 2021 is dismissed.

The interim order stands vacated.

(ARINDAM MUKHERJEE, J.)

sb.