Sg vs Ct. 8 Hari Sadhan Sett & Ors
2023 Latest Caselaw 3432 Cal

SAT 365 of 2015 Item-19.

           16-05-2023
                                                Jagannath Shaw
  sg
                                                     Versus
             Ct. 8                           Hari Sadhan Sett & Ors.

The appellant is not represented nor any accommodation is

prayed for on behalf of the appellant.

The matter initially appeared in the warning list on 6 th

March, 2023 and thereafter transferred to the regular list on 21 st

March, 2023. There was a clear indication in the list that the

matter shall be transferred to the daily cause list on 21st March,

2023 and since then, the appeal is appearing in the list. In spite of

having due notice and knowledge that the matter is pending, the

appellants are not represented. The appellants have also not taken

any step to remove the defects as notified by the Additional Stamp

Reporter on 3rd August, 2015. It is clear that the appellant is not

interested to proceed with the matter.

We could have dismissed the appeal for non-removal of the

defects. However, we propose to have a look at the judgments of

both the courts in order to find out whether the second appeal

involves any substantial question of law. We have also read the

grounds of appeal.

The appellate decree dated 20th April, 2015 passed by the

learned Additional District Judge, Chandernagore, Hooghly

affirming the judgment and decree dated 31st July, 2012 and 13th

August, 2012 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division),

Additional Court, Chandernagore in a suit for recovery of

possession on revocation licence and injunction is the subject

matter of challenge in this second appeal.

We have carefully read the judgments of both the courts and

the grounds of appeal. It is evidence from the judgement of both

the courts that the defendant along with his predecessor was

allowed to stay in the suit premises. The plea of section 60B of the

Easement Act could not be proved. The contribution towards

construction of the permanent construction was also not proved.

Under such circumstances, we do not find any reason to

admit the second appeal.

The second appeal stands dismissed. However, there shall

be no order as to costs.

   (Uday Kumar, J.)                            (Soumen Sen, J.)