Page No.# 1/2 vs Namita Tarafdar
2021 Latest Caselaw 2364 Gua

                                                                               Page No.# 1/2

GAHC010069522021




                              THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
   (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

                                    Case No. : SAO/3/2021

            PARTHA JYOTI BORAH AND ANR.
            S/O- SHRI BOLORAM BORAH, R/O- CLUB ROAD BLOCK NO. 14, P.O., P.S.
            AND DIST.- JORHAT, ASSAM.

            2: SMTI. NIRMITA BORAH
            W/O- SHRI PARTHA JYOTI BORAH
             R/O- CLUB ROAD BLOCK NO. 14
             P.O.
             P.S. AND DIST.- JORHAT
            ASSAM

            VERSUS

            NAMITA TARAFDAR
            W/O- LATE ARUN TARAFDAR, R/O- LICHUBARI COLONY, P.O., P.S. AND
            DIST.- JORHAT, ASSAM.



Advocate for the Petitioner   : MR. P S DEKA

Advocate for the Respondent :




                                   BEFORE
                  HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHIVJYOTI SAIKIA

                                          ORDER

29.09.2021

Heard Mr. B.K. Bhagawati, learned counsel appearing for the appellants.

Page No.# 2/2

The appeal is admitted for hearing upon the following 3 (three) substantial questions of law:

A. Whether the order of remanding the matter passed by the learned First Appellate Court vide impugned judgment dated 05.01.2021 in T.A. No. 10/2018 directing the learned trial Court to decide the suit afresh limited to the issue as to whether the respondents/defendants are in illegal occupation of the schedule-B suit property by way of advocate commissions or by revenue commission is sustainable in law and facts when the evidence available in record and exhibited documents is sufficient enough to decide the same?

B. Whether the learned First Appellate Court committed perversity by the impugned judgment and remanding the matter to the learned trial Court to decide the suit afresh to the issue as to whether the respondent/defendant are in illegal occupation of the schedule-B suit property by way of advocate commission and by way of revenue commission is sustainable in facts and law though the simple arithmetic calculation clearly speaks that the respondent/plaintiff purchased land measuring 10.13 lecha wherein houses are constructed covering 29 feet x 50 feet does no vacant land remains therefore there is no question of grabbing the schedule- B land?

C. Whether the learned First Appellate Court had pecuniary jurisdiction to hear the appeal preferred by the plaintiff/appellant when the appeal/suit was valued at Rs.14,50,000/- for the purpose of jurisdiction as provided under Section 21 of The Bengal, Agra and Assam Civil Courts Act, 1887?

The appellants are at liberty to raise any other substantial questions of law at the time of hearing.

Issue Notice to the sole respondent. The appellants are directed to take steps for service of notice upon the respondent by registered post with A/D and other usual process.

LCR be called for.

List after 6 (six) weeks.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant