Table of Content
1. application under article 227 (Para 1 , 2)
2. background of the partition suit (Para 3)
3. arguments regarding counter claims (Para 4 , 5 , 6)
4. court's observations on established procedures (Para 7 , 8 , 9)
5. ruling on jurisdictional error (Para 10)
6. final remarks on disposal (Para 11)

For the Petitioners : Mr. Malay Kr. Ghosh, Sr. Adv. Ms. Kakali Samajpaty, Adv. For the Opposite parties : Mr. Bikash Kr. Chattopadhyay, Adv. Ms. Sohini Chakraborty, Adv. Hearing concluded on : 16th August, 2023 Judgement on : 24th August, 2023 Siddhartha Roy Chowdhury, J.:

1. This application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenges the Order No. 66 dated 1st August, 2006 passed by learned 2 nd Civil Judge (Senior Division), Barasat, North 24 Parganas in Title Suit No. 51 of 1996.

2. For the sake of convenience the parties will be referred to as they were arrayed before the learned Trial Court.

3. Briefly stated, Nirmal Mukherjee, predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiff brought a suit being Title Suit No. 51 of 1996 against the defendant for partition and permanent injunction. The defendant has been contesting the suit by filing written statement denying all materi

Click Here to Read the rest of this document