Anand Kumar Roongta vs Balai Chandra Das & Anr
2026 Latest Caselaw 1037 Cal/2

Calcutta High Court

Anand Kumar Roongta vs Balai Chandra Das & Anr on 17 February, 2026

Author: Arindam Mukherjee

Bench: Arindam Mukherjee

OD-12

                    IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
                  ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
                             ORIGINAL SIDE

                                IA NO. GA/1/2025
                                        IN
                                    CS/9/2025

                           ANAND KUMAR ROONGTA
                                     VS
                          BALAI CHANDRA DAS & ANR.

BEFORE:
THE HON'BLE JUSTICE ARINDAM MUKHERJEE

Date: 17th February, 2026.

Appearance :

Mr. Pranit Bag, Adv.

Mr. Rahul Poddar, Arc.

Mr. Souvik Banerjee, Adv.

Mr. Anousho Das, Adv.

For plaintiff Mr. Prabal Kr. Mukherjee, Sr. Adv.

Mr. Tarak Nath Halder, Adv.

Mr. Sagnik Chatterjee, Adv.

Mr. Sayan Mukherjee, Adv.

For defendant no.1

The Court : Mr. Prabal Kumar Mukherjee, learned senior advocate

appearing on behalf of the defendant no.1 submits that the second appeal filed

by the plaintiff arises out of an eviction decree passed against the said plaintiff.

The second appeal has been admitted on three points but the same will not fall

for consideration in the instant suit. The application, inter alia, for injunction

filed by the plaintiff, therefore, can be taken up even during the pendency of

the second appeal.

It is further submitted by Mr. Mukherjee that pursuant to the award

being made and published in the arbitration declaring the respective shares of

the defendant no.1 and his brother and specific allotment in terms thereof and

the arbitration proceeding stood terminated and the learned Arbitrator had

become functus officio.

After passing the award there was no embargo amongst the defendant

no.1 and his brother to mutually inter change their respective allotments to

swipe the tenants under them in view of incorrect recording in the award. It

was not possible to go before the learned Arbitrator to get the same corrected

as the statutory period available for correction of the Award had expired prior

to the detection of the error.

The suit, according to the defendant no.1, is an abuse of process. There

is no clear right to sue in favour of the plaintiff and the suit and the claim

made therein are barred by limitation.

The arguments could not be concluded. The matter is adjourned and

shall appear in the list on 17th March, 2026.

(ARINDAM MUKHERJEE, J.)

Sb/