Back
CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J
Smt. Radhika Dey – Appellant
Versus
Saira Banu and others – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. recall application due to improper service (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. trial court's authority and jurisdiction in modification (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 3. limitations on modifying orders without due application (Para 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 4. basis for judicial review under article 227 (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16) |
| 5. final verdict and annulment of previous order (Para 17 , 18 , 19 , 20) |
1. CAN 1 of 2025 is an application for recall of an order dated July 21, 2025.
2. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant argues that the applicant, who was one of the proforma opposite parties in the revisional application, was not served properly, which is borne out by the concerned postal track report annexed to the affidavit-of-service which had been filed on the relevant date by the revisionist petitioner, which indicates that, insofar as the present applicant is concerned, the item was delivered to the sender, clearly indicating that the service was not effected on the present applicant.
3. Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties, it transpires that the Court proceeded on the premise that good service had been effected on all the opposite parties and had taken up the matter whereas the p
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
