Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(Cal) 348

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA, J.
Iftekhar Alam - Appellant
Vs.
M/s. K.N. Paul - Respondent
C.O. 2469 of 2025
Decided On : 24-07-2025

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. Tanmoy Mukherjee, Mr. Animesh Paul
For the Respondent: Mr. Debjit Mukherjee, Mr. Kaustav Bhattacharya, Ms. Priyanka Jana

The procedural rights of a party must be respected, allowing for amendments and oral submissions in appellate processes to ensure fair adjudication.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 227 - Amendment of written statement - The appellant challenged decisions of the First Appellate Court regarding the amendment application and was not allowed to make oral arguments, raising procedural concerns about the appeal process. (Paras 2, 19)

(B) Civil Procedure Code - Order 6 Rule 17, Order 41 Rule 27, Section 151 - The Court noted that applications under the Civil Procedure Code must be considered appropriately before advancing an appeal, emphasizing that amending pleadings is a crucial procedural aspect of justice. (Paras 12, 20)

Facts of the case:
The appellant filed applications for amending his written statement while challenging the delay in the hearing of his title appeal, raising issues regarding the handling of procedural applications by the First Appellate Court.

Findings of Court:
The First Appellate Court was ordered to consider the oral arguments of the appellant and address pending applications before finalizing the judgment on a specific date.

Issues: The core issue was whether the appellant was entitled to make oral arguments and the handling of procedural applications by the trial court before delivering judgment.

Ratio Decidendi: The Court ruled that a fair opportunity must be granted to make oral submissions, and procedural applications must be dealt with adequately to ensure justice is served.

Result: CO 2469 of 2025 stands disposed of with directions for further hearings.

Table of Content
1. right to oral arguments in appellate proceedings. (Para 19 , 20)
2. final disposal of application with directions. (Para 22)

JUDGMENT :

Hiranmay Bhattacharyya , J.

1. The defendant, who is the appellant in Title Appeal No.94 of 2023 has approached this Court by filing an application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the orders dated December 5, 2024, December 23, 2024, January 22, 2025 and May 22, 2025, all passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track, 1^st Court at Howrah in Title Appeal No.94 of 2023.

2. Mr. Tanmoy Mukherjee, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner filed an application for amendment of the written statement but the learned judge of the First Appellate Court passed an order on December 5, 2024 thereby directing the appellant to file the amended memo of appeal on the next date. Mr. Mukherjee submits that an application under Order 41 Rule 27 along with the application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure for amendment of written statement were filed and the learned judge of the First Appellate Court did not fix any date for hearing of the application under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Mr. Mukherjee further submits that on May 22, 2025 the petitioner filed an application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, but the learned judge of the First Appellate Court instead of fixing a date for hearing of such application fixed a date for delivery of judgment. Mr. Mukherjee submits that though the petitioner who is the appellant in the aforesaid title appeal had filed the written notes of argument but the petitioner was not allowed to advance any oral argument in support of the appeal as well as the application under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

3. Mr. Debjit Mukherjee, learned advocate appearing for the opposite party submits that the petitioner complied with the order allowing the application for amendment of the written statement by filing an amended written statement. He further submits that the appellant, who is the defendant in a suit for eviction is trying to delay the hearing of the appeal on frivolous grounds. He submits that the petitioner herein after advancing oral argument in part thereafter filed an application for amendment of the written statement and the application under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure in order to delay the hearing of the appeal. He further submits that the opposite party was, therefore, was compelled to file an application under Article 227 of the Constitution being CO 2561 of 2024 praying for a direction upon the learned judge of the Appellate Court to dispose of the appeal expeditiously and a co-ordinate Bench, by an order dated September 19, 2024, passed a direction upon the learned judge of the Appellate Court to dispose of the appeal expeditiously without granting any unnecessary adjournments to either of the parties.

4. Heard the learned advocates for the respective parties and perused the materials placed.

5. Record reveals that November 22, 2023 was fixed for hearing of the appeal. On that date the petitioner herein prayed for time on the ground of the learned senior advocate and the learned judge of the Appellate Court allowed such prayer and fixed January 6, 2024 for hearing of this appeal. On January 6, 2024 the learned judge of the First Appellate Court heard the argument of the appellant/petitioner herein in part and on the prayer of the learned advocate for the petitioner fixed April 2, 2024 for hearing of the appeal and it was recorded in the said order dated April 2, 2024 that no further adjournment shall be granted. On June 20, 2024 the learned judge of the Appellate Court adjourned the hearing of the appeal for the ends of justice and fixed July 3, 2024 for hearing of the appeal and observed that no further adjournment shall be granted.

6. At this stage it would be relevant to point out that the co-ord

Click Here to Read the rest of this document