Gauhati High Court
Rajat Ghosh vs On The Death Of Bijitendra Narayan Paul @ ... on 9 May, 2025
Page No.# 1/6
GAHC010196872024
undefined
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : I.A.(Civil)/3205/2024
RAJAT GHOSH
S/O LATE RUKMINI KANTA GHOSH,
RESIDENT OF VIVEKANAND ROAD, JAGADISH BOSE LANE, SILCHAR, PS
SILCHAR, DIST CACHAR, ASSAM 788007
VERSUS
ON THE DEATH OF BIJITENDRA NARAYAN PAUL @ BIJIT NARAYAN PAUL
HIS LEGAL HEIRS BIJOY PAUL AND ORS E
S/O LATE BIJITENDRA NARAYAN PAUL, RESIDENT OF C/O KALYANI
MEDICOS COLLEGE ROAD, PO SILCHAR DIST CACHAR, ASSAM 788007
2:SRI BIPLAB PAUL
S/O LATE BIJITENDRA NARAYAN PAUL
RESIDENT OF C/O KALYANI MEDICOS COLLEGE ROAD
PO SILCHAR DIST CACHAR
ASSAM 788007
3:SMTI SWASTIKA PAUL
W/O SRI DWIPAN PAUL
RESIDENT OF C/O KALYANI MEDICOS COLLEGE ROAD
PO SILCHAR DIST CACHAR
ASSAM 788007
4:SMTI. MADHUMITA GUPTA
W/O SRI SIDDHARTHA GUPTA
D/O LATE BIJITENDRA NARAYAN PAUL
RESIDENT OF HOUSE NO. 14
DACCAPATTY
Page No.# 2/6
PO AND PS SILCHAR
DIST CACHAR
ASSAM 78800
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR SISHIR DUTTA, MR S DUTTA
Advocate for the Respondent : ,
In Case : RSA/116/2024
RAJAT GHOSH
S/O LATE RUKMINI KANTA GHOSH
RESIDENT OF VIVEKANAND ROAD
JAGADISH BOSE LANE
SILCHAR
PS SILCHAR
DIST CACHAR
ASSAM 788007
VERSUS
ON THE DEATH OF BIJITENDRA NARAYAN PAUL @ BIJIT NARAYAN PAUL
HIS LEGAL HEIRS BIJOY PAUL AND ORS
S/O LATE BIJITENDRA NARAYAN PAUL
RESIDENT OF C/O KALYANI MEDICOS COLLEGE ROAD
PO SILCHAR DIST CACHAR
ASSAM 788007
2:SRI BIPLAB PAUL
S/O LATE BIJITENDRA NARAYAN PAUL
RESIDENT OF C/O KALYANI MEDICOS COLLEGE ROAD
PO SILCHAR DIST CACHAR
ASSAM 788007
3:SMTI SWASTIKA PAUL
W/O SRI DWIPAN PAUL
RESIDENT OF C/O KALYANI MEDICOS COLLEGE ROAD
PO SILCHAR DIST CACHAR
Page No.# 3/6
ASSAM 788007
4:SMTI. MADHUMITA GUPTA
W/O SRI SIDDHARTHA GUPTA
D/O LATE BIJITENDRA NARAYAN PAUL
RESIDENT OF HOUSE NO. 14
DACCAPATTY
PO AND PS SILCHAR
DIST CACHAR
ASSAM 788001
------------
Advocate for : MR SISHIR DUTTA
Advocate for : appearing for ON THE DEATH OF BIJITENDRA NARAYAN PAUL
@ BIJIT NARAYAN PAUL HIS LEGAL HEIRS BIJOY PAUL AND ORS
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA
ORDER
09.05.2025
1. Heard Mr. S. Dutta, the learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Mr. A.
Biswas, the learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. S. Dutta, the
learned counsel appearing for the respondents, as well as joint applicant.
2. This joint application under Order 23 Rule 3 of the Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908 has been filed by the appellant, as well as respondents of RSA
No. 116/2024, inter alia stating that they have arrived at a compromised
settlement between themselves and in view of the said settlement, the regular
second appeal may be disposed of in terms of the settlement arrived at between
the parties.
3. It is pertinent to mention herein that the Title Suit filed by the
appellant as plaintiff before the Trial Court, i.e. Title Suit No. 10/2023 praying
Page No.# 4/6
for specific performance of contract dated 25.08.2021, though proceeded ex
parte, the same was dismissed by the Trial Court mainly on the ground that
plaintiff failed to prove the title of the predecessor-in-interest of the defendant
over the suit premises.
4. Being aggrieved by the judgment of the Trial Court, the plaintiff had
filed an appeal before the Court of the learned District Judge, Silchar, which was
registered as Title Appeal No. 07/2023. The said Title Appeal was also dismissed
on the ground that the plaintiff failed to prove the title of the predecessor-in-
interest of the defendant over the suit land and upheld the judgment of the Trial
Court.
5. On being aggrieved by the judgment of the First Appellate Court, the
applicant had preferred the connected regular second appeal, i.e. RSA No. 116
of 2024, wherein following substantial question(s) of law were formulated:-
"1. Whether the failure on the part of the First Appellate
Court to formulate the "points of determination" as
envisaged under Order 41 Rule 31(a) of the Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908 have rendered the Judgment & Decree
dated 03.02.2024 passed by the learned District Judge,
Cachar, Silchar, Assam in Title Appeal No. 07 of 2016
illegal, void and contrary to law?
2. Whether the First Appellate Court and the learned Trial
Court were both justified in a suit for Specific Performance
of Contract to question the right and authority of the
vendor i.e. Late Bijitendra Narayan Paul, to enter into a
Page No.# 5/6
contract (i.e. the "Bainama" dated 25.08.2021) to sell the
suit property to the vendee (i.e. the appellants herein)
when the title and authority of the vendor was never in
dispute or put to challenge in the said trial?
3. Whether the First Appellate Court was justified in
disregarding the "Joint Compromise Petition" filed by the
parties under Order 23 Rule 3 CPC on 30.08.2023 while
rejecting the appeal preferred by the appellant and
upholding the judgment and decree dated 23.06.2023
passed by the Civil Judge No.1, Cachar, Silchar, Assam in
Title Suit No.10 of 2023?"
6. It is pertinent to mention herein that in the First Appellate Court also,
the applicant had filed a joint compromise petition under Order 23 Rule 3 read
with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which was not allowed in
view of the fact that the terms of compromise petition are contrary to the
judgment of the Trial Court and unless the judgment of the Trial Court is in
force, the joint compromise cannot be allowed.
7. Since the First Appellate Court has also disallowed the joint
compromise petition mainly on the ground stated in the foregoing paragraphs
and since, this Court has already formulated the substantial question(s) of law
as discussed hereinabove, in the connected Regular Second Appeal, this Court is
of the considered, it may not be appropriate to consider and allow this
interlocutory application at this stage without deciding the substantial
question(s) of law formulated in the connected Regular Second Appeal.
8. In view of the above, this Court is of the considered opinion that this
Page No.# 6/6
interlocutory application should be considered, only after a decision on the
substantial question(s) of law formulated in the connected Regular Second
Appeal is made.
9. Therefore, let this interlocutory application be listed for hearing, along
with the connected RSA No. 116/2024 after 2(two) weeks, on a date to be fixed
by the Registry.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
