CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
SIDDHARTHA ROY CHOWDHURY, J
ATANU MUKHERJEE & ANR. – Appellant
Versus
JUTHIKA MUKHERJEE & ORS. – Respondent
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 material allegations made in the plaint. It is contended that the parties do have a property at Rahara which has not been brought within the hotchpotch 2 of the schedule of the plaint of the partition suit. The defendant also filed a counter claim which was rejected by learned Trial Court on 25th November, 2003
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.