Tripura High Court
Sri Dipak Kumar Paul vs Sri Chayan Pal on 20 June, 2024
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
RSA No.24 of 2022
1. Sri Dipak Kumar Paul
S/o Late Thakur Chand Paul,
2. Smt. Binapani Paul,
W/o. Sri Dipak Kumar Paul,
Both are residents of Math Chowmuhani,
College Road, Agartala,
P.O.-Agartala College, P.S. East Agartala,
District-West Tripura
------ The Defendant Respondent Appellants
Versus
1. Sri Chayan Pal,
S/O. Lt. Thakur Chand Paul,
2. Smt. Supta Pal,
W/O. Sri. Chayan Pal,
Both are resident of 'Gitanjali Apartment',
H.G.B. Road, Agartala,
P.O.- Agartala, P.S.-West Agartala,
District- West Tripura.
------The Plaintiff Appellant Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. D. R. Chowdhury, Sr. Adv,
Mr. S. Sarkar, Adv.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. S. M. Chakraborty, Sr. Adv,
Ms. P. Chakraborty, Adv.
Date of hearing : 31.05.2024
Date of delivery of
Judgment & Order : 20.06.2024
Whether fit for
reporting : YES
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BISWAJIT PALIT
Judgment & Order
This appeal under Section 100 of CPC is preferred
challenging the judgment dated 07.04.2022 and decree dated
Page 2 of 18
30.04.2022 passed by Learned Addl. District Judge, Court No.2,
West Tripura, Agartala in connection with case no.TA No.10 of
2019. By the said judgment, Learned 1st Appellate Court has
reversed the judgment dated 30.11.2018 and decree dated
15.12.2018 delivered by Learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division),
Court No.3, West Tripura, Agartala in connection with case
no.T.S. No.52 of 2014.
2. Heard Learned Senior Counsel, Mr. D. R. Chowdhury
assisted by Learned Counsel Mr. S. Sarkar for the appellant-
defendant and also heard Learned Senior Counsel Mr. S. M.
Chakraborty assisted by Learned Counsel Ms. P. Chakraborty for
the respondent-plaintiffs.
3. Before coming to the conclusion of this appeal, let us
project the subject matter of dispute amongst the rival parties
for which this present appeal cropped up.
4. The present respondent as plaintiff has filed a suit
before the Court of Learned Civil Judge, Sr. Division, West
Tripura, Agartala which was numbered as T.S. No.52 of 2014.
In the said suit, the main contention of the respondent-plaintiffs
was that the suit is the land measuring 0.0230 acres
appertaining to khatians No.125 and 126 comprised in old C.S.
plots no.16214/53886 and 16214/53885 corresponding to
revisional plots No.406 and 405 at mouja Agartala sheet no.19
described more particularly in the schedule hereunder written
and is hereinafter referred as the suit land. The plaintiffs are the
husband and wife. The defendant no.1 of the main suit is the
Page 3 of 18
full blooded brother of plaintiff no.1 and defendant no.2 is the
wife of the defendant no.1. The father of the plaintiff no.1
Thakur Chand Paul(since dead) and his cousin brother Madhav
Chandra Paul (since dead) were joint owners in possession of
land measuring 0.120 acre corresponding to 6 gandas 12 dhurs
including the suit land during their lifetime appertaining to old
khatian no.5915 within the old C.S. plot no.16214 at Mouja
Agartala sheet no.19 where the father of the plaintiff no.1 and
his cousin brother had been in joint possession by constructing
dwelling house therein and by residing in the dwelling house
with their family members. Thereafter, the father of the plaintiff
no.1 and his cousin brother Shri Madhav Chandra paul made
partition of the said land by metes and bounds and the partition
was effected by a registered deed of partition bearing no.1-
7512 dated 03.04.1958 and by that deed of partition, land
measuring 4 gandas including the suit land was allotted to the
share of the father of the plaintiff no.1. The father of the
plaintiff no.1 died intestate on 14.09.1993 leaving behind the
plaintiff no.1 and the defendant no.1 and two other sons
namely Shri Sukumal Paul and Shri Shyamal Paul and two
daughters namely Smti. Mukul Paul and Smti. Manju Paul and
widow Smti. Anjali Paul as his legal heirs and on the death of
father of the plaintiff no.1 his right, title and interest over the
said land devolved upon his legal heirs by way of inheritance.
5. After that plaintiff no.1 and his co-sharers amicably
partitioned their aforesaid joint property and the partition was
Page 4 of 18
effected by registered deed of partition no.1-3525 dated
19.08.1995 whereby land measuring 1 ganda 13 dhurs was
allotted to the share of the mother of the plaintiff no.1 Smt.
Anjali Paul and land measuring 1 kara 2 krantas was allotted to
the share of the plaintiff no.1 and the plaintiffs got land
measuring 1 kara 1 kranta 10 dhurs from the mother of the
plaintiffs no.1 out of her share by a registered deed of Gift
no.1-3602 dated 01.07.1998 and at the same time plaintiffs
purchased land measuring 2 karas 2 krantas 3 dhurs from the
defendant no.1 by a registered deed of sale no.1-2548 dated
19.05.1998 and at the same time, the plaintiff no.1 also sold
land measuring 1 kara 15 dhurs out of his share to the
defendant no.1 by another registered sale deed dated
19.05.1998 and the aforesaid land got by the plaintiffs from
different sources was surveyed in the last revisional survey and
settlement operation within the periphery of R.S. Plots No.406
and 405 and recorded in the name of the plaintiffs in khatian
no.125 and 126 with total area of land measuring 0.0230 acre
which was the suit land of the present suit. The plaintiffs have
been in open, peaceful, actual and exclusive possession of the
same by constructing dwelling house therein and by residing in
their suit land with their family members without any
obstruction from any quarter. The defendants have had no
right, title, interest or possession over the same. The defendant
no.1 is the owner of land adjacent south and west of the suit
land appertaining to Khatian no.176 and 175 within the
Page 5 of 18
periphery of R.S. Plot No.410 and 409 at Mouja Agartala sheet
no.19 by purchase and by inheritance where the defendants
have been residing permanently by constructing dwelling house
and there was no boundary dispute between the suit land and
the land of the defendants. For maintaining privacy of the
dwelling house of the plaintiffs and for its safety and security,
boundary wall was necessary to be constructed between the
suit land and land of the defendants and for that purpose,
plaintiffs took attempt for construction of boundary wall on the
southern side of the suit land on 1st June, 2014 at 10 a.m. and
at that time the defendants raised serious objection against the
construction of boundary wall without any reason and because
of strong resistance from the defendants the plaintiffs could not
proceed with the construction work and thus compelled to
abandon the construction work at very initial stage giving rise
to the cause of action for institution of the suit.
6. According to the plaintiffs of the main suit, the plaintiffs
have been in possession of the suit land by constructing
dwelling house and by residing therein without any obstruction
and the defendants having no right, title and interest or
possession therein. At the same there is no boundary dispute
between the suit land and the land of the defendants and as
such the plaintiffs have right to construct boundary wall
between the suit land and the dwelling house of the defendants
and the defendants have no right to create obstruction in the
construction of boundary wall and as such in view of the
Page 6 of 18
obstruction created by the defendants in the construction of
boundary wall, the plaintiffs are entitled to a decree for
perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from interfering
with the construction of boundary wall as aforesaid. The cause
of action for the suit arose on 1st June 2014 when the
defendants raised objection against the construction of
boundary wall and in the subsequent period. The plaintiffs
thereafter prayed before the Court to pass a decree for
permanent/perpetual injunction restraining the defendants and
their men, agent, representatives or any other person/persons
acting on their behalf from creating obstruction at the time of
construction of boundary wall by the plaintiffs on the western
and southern side of the suit land and in any way from
interfering with the construction work of the boundary wall.
7. For the sake of convenience, the schedule of the suit
land as mentioned in the plaint is narrated below:
SCHEDULE
SUIT LAND
All that piece or parcel of land within the
district of West Tripura at Agartala, under East
Agartala, Tehasil office at Mouja Agartala, Sheet
No.19, appertaining to Khatians No.125 & 126
comprised in old CS Plots No.16214/53886 &
16214/53885 corresponding to revisional plots
no.406 & 405.
North by - Dwelling house of Sri Tapan Banik.
South by - Dwelling house of the defendants.
East by - Vacant land of Sukomal Pal and
pathway.
West by - Dwelling house of the defendants.
Inside this boundary land measuring 0.0230
acres classified as homestead.
8. The defendants in obedience to the notice issued
appeared before the Court and contested the suit by filing
Page 7 of 18
written statement. The defendants side by their written
statement stated that there is no cause of action to file the suit
by the plaintiffs against the defendants and hence, the same is
liable to be dismissed in limine and the instant suit is barred by
the principles of estoppels, waiver and acquiescence. It was
further submitted that the plaintiffs having no valid right, title
or possession on the suit land and as such there was no basis
for granting a decree of perpetual injunction. It was further
submitted by the defendant that although in Khatian nos.125 &
126, the total land has been recorded as 0.0230 acre, but in
fact it is measuring 0.0244 acres, i.e. land measuring 0.0034
acres is more than the recorded land in the khatian. Thus, the
extra more land measuring 0.0034 acres is the pathway as
mentioned in the registered deed of partition vide no.1-3525
dated 19.08.1995 which is of the joint/ejmali path. A case was
filed under Section 95 of the TLR & LR Act, 1960 for avoiding
the said anomaly and for settling the dispute by correcting the
record of right and the map which is registered as Revenue case
no.125 of 2014 and still pending before the learned Revenue
Court. During revisional survey operation, the record of right of
RS Plot no.409 corresponding to CS Plot No.16214/53879 and
RS Plot No.410 corresponding to CS Plot No.16214/53893 was
wrongly recorded and for correction of such wrong/mistake, a
Revenue case no.209/12 was filed before the District Collector,
West Tripura, Agartala and after proper field inquiry, such
wrong was corrected by the District Collector by its order dated
Page 8 of 18
06.07.2012 in Revenue Case No.209/12. After field inquiry
made in this case by the revenue authority, the map has also
been corrected showing plot no.406 and part of plot no.405 as
existing road which is the ejmali (joint) road used by all the
legal heirs of Lt. Thakur Chand Pal, the father of the plaintiff
no.1 and the defendant no.1, since long back, as also
mentioned in schedule-8 of the Family Partition Deed No.1-
3525 dated 19.08.1995 executed by the then all the co-sharers
including the plaintiff no.1 and the defendant no.1 and the suit
land includes the said ejmali road and in the building plan of the
plaintiffs also, the aforesaid ejmali road has been shown by the
plaintiffs as Gali Road, which cannot be denied. So, finally the
defendant by the written statement prayed for dismissal of the
suit with costs.
9. Upon the pleadings of the parties, Learned Court below
framed the following issues:
i) Whether the suit is maintainable in its present
form and nature?
ii) Whether the plaintiffs have been possessing the
suit land without any interruption since partition
of the joint properties effected by registered
deed of partition no.1-3525 dated 19.08.1995?
iii) Whether the defendants raised objection against
the construction of boundary wall on
01.06.2014?
iv) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to decree of
perpetual injunction, as prayed for?
v) Whether the parties are entitled to any other
relief/reliefs?
10. To substantiate the issues, the plaintiffs have adduced
only one witness and relied upon some documents which were
marked as exhibits. On the other hand, the defendants have
Page 9 of 18
adduced only one witness and relied upon five documents which
were also exhibited.
Plaintiff's witness:
i) PW-1 : Sri Chayan Paul
Plaintiff's Exhibits:
i) Ext.-1 : The certified copy of registered deed
of partition No.7512, dated 03.04.1958
executed by Sri Thakur Chand Paul & Sri
Madhab Ch. Paul.
ii) Ext.-2 : The original registered deed of
partition No.3525 dated 19.08.1985
executed by Smt. Anjali Paul and others.
iii) Ext.-3 : The original deed of gift No.1-3602
dated 01.07.1998 executed by Smt. Anjali
Paul.
iv) Ext.-4 : The registered sale deed No.1-2548
dated 19.05.1998 executed by Sri Dipak
Paul in favour of Smt. Sukta Paul and PW-1.
v) Ext.-5 : The certified copy of Khatian No.125
of Mouja Agartala, Sheet No.19.
vi) Ext.-6 : The certified copy of Khaitan No.126
of Mouja Agartala, Sheet No.19.
vii) Ext.-7 : The original settlement map.
Defendant's witness:
i) DW-1 : Sri Dipak Kr. Paul
Defendant's Exhibits:
i) Ext.-A : The original copy of petition under
RTI for supplying building plan of the
plaintiffs dated 19.10.2013 and supplying of
the said building plan by the letter dated
30.10.2013 by the AMC.
ii) Ext.-B : The certified copy of settlement map
of Mouja Agartala, Sheet No.19(Part)
iii) Ext.-C : The petition U/S 95 of the TLR & LR
Act, pending Revenue Case No.125 of 2014.
iv) Ext.-D : The certified copy of the order dated
06.07.2012 passed by the District Collector
in Revenue Case No.209 of 2012, U/S 95 of
the TLR & LR Act along with present map of
the suit land and report of DCM.
v) Ext.-E : The certified copies of Khatian
Nos.689, 157, 126, 125, 176 & 175.
11. And finally on conclusion of trial, the Learned Trial
Court below by judgment dated 30.11.2018 dismissed the suit.
Page 10 of 18
The operative portion of the judgment/order of the Learned
Trial Court runs as follows:
ORDER
"In the result, the suit of the plaintiffs is dismissed
with costs.
Accordingly, the instant suit is disposed of on
contest with costs.
The Shrestadar of the Court is hereby directed to
prepare the decree and to place it before me for my
signature within fifteen days from the date of
passing of this judgment.
Enter the result in the concerned Trial Register.
Announced.
Record to be consigned to D.R.R."
12. Challenging that judgment, the plaintiffs of the original
suit preferred an appeal before the Court of Learned District
Judge which was transferred to the Court of Learned Addl.
District Judge, Court no.2 in due course of time and the Learned
1st Appellate Court by judgment dated 07.04.2022 and decree
dated 30.04.2022 reversed the judgment of the Learned Trial
Court. For the sake of convenience, I would like to refer
hereinbelow the operative portion of order of the Learned 1 st
Appellate Court dated 07.04.2022 which runs as follows:
ORDER
"In the result, the appeal stands allowed on contest
with costs. The judgment and decree so passed by
Trial Court in TS 52 of 2014 stands set aside. The
respondents are perpetually restrained from
creating any sort of obstruction at the time of
construction of boundary wall by the appellants on
the western and southern side of the suit land and
also from interfering with the construction work of
such boundary wall.
To feel contrive for their (respondents)
reproachable conduct there is no order as to costs.
Prepare decree accordingly.
Send back the L.C. record along with a copy of this
judgment.
This appeal stands disposed off on contest.
Enter the result.
Record be consigned to DRR."
13. Being dissatisfied with the said judgment of the
Learned 1st Appellate Court, the defendants of the original suit
as appellants have preferred this second appeal before this
Court.
At the time of admission of appeal by order dated
31.05.2022, the following substantial question of law was
framed by this Court:
i) Whether learned First Appellate Court in allowing
the appeal of the plaintiff appellant respondents fail
to appreciate that the suit land i.e. the homestead
land of the plaintiff appellant respondent which is
the part of RS Plot Nos.405 only and where the
common/ejamali pathway consists the part of plot
No.405 & 406 and there passed the judgment
wrongly?"
14. In course of hearing, Learned Senior Counsel Mr. D. R.
Chowdhury assisted by Learned Counsel Mr. S. Sarkar
appearing for the appellants submitted that in para no.5 of the
written statement filed by the defendants in the original suit, it
was specifically stated that CS plot no.405 was a bigger plot
than C.S. plot no.406 and CS plot no.409 is bigger than C.S.
plot no.410 i.e. the homestead land. He also referred Ext.2 i.e.
the original registered deed of partition no.1-3525 dated
19.08.1985 executed by Smt. Anjali Paul and others and
submitted that in the said document in schedule 8, there was
clear indication about the alleged pathway. He further referred
para 6 of the written statement filed by the defendants in the
main suit and submitted that in the said para, it was clearly
mentioned about the alleged pathway. He also referred Ext.3
i.e. the gift deed and submitted that in the said document also,
there was clear indication of the pathway which the respondent-
plaintiffs have suppressed and referring Ext.4 i.e. the sale deed
bearing no.2548, he also drawn the attention of the Court that
in the said deed also, there was clear indication of pathway on
the southern side but the respondent-plaintiffs suppressing
everything has filed the suit without any basis. Learned Senior
Counsel further submitted that the said pathway has not been
shown in the settlement record for which the confusion has
created but the plaintiffs with an ulterior motive tried to erect
his boundary wall over the pathway and with an ulterior motive
had filed the suit for which the Learned Trial Court rightly
delivered the judgment in favour of the defendant-appellants
but the Learned 1st Appellate Court without going through the
exhibited documents reversed the finding of the Learned Trial
Court for which the interference of this Court is required and
urged for allowing this appeal dismissing the judgment and
decree delivered by the Learned 1st Appellate Court.
15. On the other hand, Learned Senior Counsel Mr. S. M.
Chakraborty assisted by Learned Counsel Ms. P. Chakraborty
appearing on behalf of the respondent-plaintiffs first of all
drawn the attention of the Court about the schedule of the suit
land as mentioned in the plaint and submitted that the suit land
comprises of C.S. plot no.406 and 405 pertaining to khatian
no.125 & 126 under Mouja Agartala sheet no.19. He further
referred Ext.2 i.e. the deed of partition bearing no.1-3525 and
in page no.5, Sri Chayan Paul has been shown as third party
and Sri Dipak Paul i.e. the defendant of the original suit had
been shown as sixth party. Thereafter, Learned Senior Counsel
referred the third schedule boundary of said Ext.2 and
submitted that the respondent-plaintiffs never claimed any land
beyond the land as mentioned in schedule 3 of the said partition
deed. Learned Senior Counsel thereafter also drawn the
attention of the Court referring Ext.5 i.e. the Khatian no.125
standing in the name of one of the respondent-plaintiff Chayan
Paul wherein against plot no.406, the classification of land is
shown as Vastu/Nal and referring Ext.6 i.e. Khatian no.126
wherein against plot no.405, the classification of land is shown
as Vastu/Nal and it was further submitted that the respondent-
plaintiffs are/were the owner of said land belonging to C.S. Plot
no.406 and 405 surveyed during revisional survey operation
and they never claimed any land beyond the said recorded
lands but the present appellant-defendants with an ulterior
motive intended to grab the land of the respondent-plaintiffs. In
this regard, he referred the provision of Section 43(3) of TLR &
LR Act which provides as under:
"43.(3) Every entry in the record of rights as finally
published shall, until the contrary is proved, be
presumed to be correct."
Referring the same, Learned Senior Counsel submitted
that that protection is given by the Legislature in respect of
khatian and that khatian never been challenged by the
appellant-defendants before any other forum. So, the plea as
taken by the appellant-defendants in this appeal cannot be
sustained in the eye of law for which the Learned 1st Appellate
Court rightly delivered the judgment in favour of the
respondent-plaintiffs.
16. Learned Senior Counsel in course of hearing of
argument also referred para no.6 of the written statement filed
by the appellant-defendants in the main suit and submitted that
in the said para, it was submitted that map was corrected
showing plot no.406 and part of plot no.405 as the existing
road but factually as per survey report, there was no such
existence of any pathway at any point of time. So, the story as
projected by the Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant-
defendants is nothing but a fabricated and manufactured story.
Learned Senior Counsel thereafter referred the order dated
06.07.2012 passed in connection with case no.Revenue
case.209/2012 under Section 95 of TLR & LR Act which was
marked as Ext.D. Referring the same, Learned Senior Counsel
further drawn the attention of this Court that in the said order,
it was clearly mentioned by the District Collector in respect of
C.S. plot no.409 land measuring 0.0400 acres and against R.S.
plot no.410 land measuring 0.0250 be shown and corrected
also and in the said order also, there is no such indication in
respect of C.S. plot no.405 & 406 belonging to the respondent-
plaintiffs. Learned Senior Counsel again drawn the attention of
the Court referring the order dated 19.09.2018, 04.07.2018
and 17.11.2018 of the Learned Trial Court in the main suit and
submitted that before the Learned Trial Court, the defendants
have adduced only witness who was examined as DW-1 but in
the judgment in internal page no.14, the Learned Trial Court
have mentioned the name of DWs-1, 2 and 3 but factually no
witnesses DW-2 or 3 were examined by the Learned Trial Court.
Thus according to Learned Senior Counsel, the judgment of the
Learned Trial Court was nothing but a total non-application of
mind. Although those DW-2 and 3 submitted their examination-
in-chief by way of affidavit but ultimately the appellant-
defendants could not produce the said witnesses for their
examination and cross-examination by the Learned Trial Court
so no reliance could be placed upon their evidence. Lastly, also
drawn the attention of the Court referring the enquiry report
submitted by DCM and submitted that based on the said
enquiry report, the District Collector passed order on
06.07.2012 and in respect of map, Learned Senior Counsel
submitted that the said document is nothing but a fabricated
document so no reliance could be placed upon that and finally
referring the certified copy of the said trace map, Learned
Senior Counsel submitted that the said trace map submitted by
the appellant-defendant has been manipulated and referring the
building plan of Shri Chayan Paul, Learned Senior Counsel
submitted that from the building plan also, it is clear that within
the suit land, there was no existence of any pathway at any
point of time rather it was the exclusive land under the
ownership and possession of the respondent-plaintiffs of the
suit and prayed for dismissal of this appeal upholding the
judgment of the Learned 1st Appellate Court.
17. In course of hearing, Learned Senior Counsel appearing
for the respondent-plaintiffs referred one citation. In K.
Devabalan and others v. M. Vijayakumari and others
dated 08.03.2006 reported in (2020) 19 SCC 399 at para 4
Hon'ble the Apex Court observed as under:
"4. As far as second ground is concerned, we
see no reason to interfere with the
decision:AIR 2003 Ker 363 of the High Court.
However, as far as the first ground is
concerned, the validity of the marriage of
Karunakaran Nadar and his wife Maria
Augustine was never in dispute between the
parties. The issue not having been raised, the
High Court entirely exceeded its jurisdiction
in holding that the marriage was invalid. That
part of the order of the High Court is
accordingly set aside. However, the second
reasoning of the High Court is upheld. The
High Courts decision is affirmed on the
second ground alone."
Perused the said judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court
and it appears to this Court that the principle laid down by the
Hon'ble Apex Court in the said case also may be applied in the
present case.
18. I have heard detailed argument of both the sides and
gone through the record of the Learned Courts below. It
appears to this Court that there is no dispute on record in
respect of the exhibited documents of either of the parties.
Now, at the time of appreciation of evidence, Learned Trial
Court below according to this Court, without any basis
considered that the alleged pathway comprises the C.S. plot
no.406 and part of C.S. plot no.405 without any basis ignoring
the relevant settlement ROR i.e. khaitans. Thus, came to a
wrong observation and ultimately dismissed the suit because if
we go through the exhibited documents i.e. Ext.D, Ext.E, Ext.5
and Ext.6, it is clearly mentioned that the present R.S. plot
nos.406 & 405 was duly recorded in the name of respondent-
plaintiffs by the settlement authority and also from the order of
the District Collector, it is crystal clear that on the basis of
prayer of the appellant-defendants, the District Collector passed
an order in Revenue case no.209/2012 on 06.07.2012 wherein
it was clearly mentioned in respect of C.S. plot no.409 and 410
and there was no whisper in respect of the suit land in the said
order of the District Collector. Even that order also has not been
challenged by the respondent-defendants to any other forum
and from the site plan, it further appears that there was clear
indication of pathway outside the CS plot. No.405 & 406, so,
the plea of the defendants-appellants that the respondent-
plaintiffs have tried to encroach the pathway beyond their
recorded land of R.S. plot no.406 & 405 cannot be accepted in
the eye of law and the District Collector also passed order based
on the field enquiry report which also remains unchallenged by
the respondent-defendants-appellants. So, in my considered
view, Learned 1st Appellate Court rightly reversed the judgment
of the learned Trial Court. The substantial question of law
stands in favour of the respondent-plaintiffs of this appeal.
19. In the result, the second appeal filed by the appellant-
defendants stands dismissed on contest being devoid of merit
with costs. The judgment dated 07.04.2022 and decree dated
30.04.2022 delivered by Learned 1st Appellate Court i.e.
Learned Addl. District Judge, West Tripura, Agartala in
connection with case no.TA No.10 of 2019 is hereby upheld and
accordingly it is affirmed.
Prepare decree accordingly.
Send down the LCRs alongwith a copy of this judgment.
Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.
JUDGE
MOUMITA Digitally signed by
MOUMITA DATTA
DATTA Date: 2024.06.21
17:35:43 -07'00'
Deepshikha
