Back
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
PARTHA SARATHI CHATTERJEE
Sanatan @ Susanta Sarkar – Appellant
Versus
Suman Dutta – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. grounds for review under order 47 rule 1 of cpc. (Para 1 , 2 , 28) |
| 2. factual background of the original suit and appeals. (Para 4 , 5 , 10 , 12 , 42) |
| 3. concurrent findings by lower courts on possession and trespassing. (Para 14 , 15 , 40 , 41) |
| 4. arguments surrounding the jurisdiction and review limitations. (Para 19 , 20 , 22 , 24 , 34) |
| 5. modification of the earlier order regarding eviction. (Para 43 , 46 , 47) |
JUDGMENT :
Partha Sarathi Chatterjee, J.
1. This memorandum of review has been filed seeking a review of the order dated 20.04.2021, passed in Second Appeal No. 36 of 2008, along with the connected application, CAN 5 of 2019. By the said order dated 20.04.2021, the Hon'ble Court had partly allowed the second appeal, set aside the common judgment and decree passed by the First Appellate Court in Title Appeal No. 4 of 2000 and Title Appeal No. 19 of 2000 (which had been heard analogously), and restored the judgment and decree of the learned Trial Court in Title Suit No. 174 of 1981.
2. The review of the order dated 20.04.2021 has been sought primarily on the ground that, although the Hon'ble Court decided all the substantial questions of law framed at the time o
Misapplication of law in determining property possession constitutes sufficient grounds for modification in review proceedings under the Code of Civil Procedure.
The judgment emphasized the requirement for the court to adjudicate all questions of right, title, and possession in the property claimed by the objector under Order XXI Rule 97, and clarified the di....
Court can exercise its power of review only when there is an error apparent on the face of the record and an error which is to be fished out by a process of reasoning cannot be said to be an error ap....
Civil Suit - Deed of partition – Share - Rule 18 of Order 6 provides that if an Order for leave to amend is obtained and if a party does not amend within time limited for that purpose by the order or....
The appellate court's failure to address pertinent arguments submitted by the reviewing party constituted an error of law warranting the review of the judgment.
A review is limited to correcting apparent errors in the record, not a re-evaluation of the case, reaffirming that findings must strike readily without extensive reasoning.
The reviewing court had jurisdiction to review the order, and the Petitioner, as a third party being a transferee during the pendency of the civil suit, cannot claim better rights than the defendants....
(1) Objection to execution of decree – If obstructor admits that he is a transferee pendente lite it is not necessary to determine a question raised by him that he was unaware of litigation when he p....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the need to address conflicting claims based on C.S. record of right and R.S. record of right, and to ensure expeditious disposal of the suit.
The validity of the amendment to the original notification under the Estates Abolition Act, 1948 and its impact on the plaintiff's rights to the suit property.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
