SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(Cal) 3777

CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, Uday Kumar, JJ
Swapan Belel – Appellant
Versus
Tapan Belel and others – Respondent
F.M.A. 659 of 2025



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. Subarna Bank
For the Respondents: Mr. Aniket Mitra, Mr. Tapas Singha Ray, Mr. Biswarup Chatterjee

Court can extend deadlines for filings in matters of estate and probate while ensuring justice is served without unnecessary delay.

Headnote:The court addressed the issues surrounding the extension of time for filing affidavits due to the illness of counsel. The appellant's requested adjournment was opposed by the respondents, citing delays in a commenced construction project. The court ruled to allow rejoinders from pro forma respondents to be filed within a week, while also extending the time for the appellant's responses. Critical issues raised were left open for determination at the final hearing, scheduled for July 8, 2025.

Table of Content
1. issues regarding extensions in legal filing (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. court's authority on managing filings and adjournments (Para 4 , 5 , 6)
3. pending issues to be resolved at next hearing (Para 7)
4. next hearing date set (Para 8)

1. Learned counsel for the proforma respondent nos.10 to 14 seeks an opportunity to file an affidavit-in-reply/rejoinder to the affidavit-in- opposition used by the respondent nos.1 and 2 to CAN 1 of 2025.

2. Learned counsel for the appellant seeks an extension of the time to file affidavit-in-reply on the ground of sickness of learned counsel for the appellant.

3. Learned counsel for the respondent nos.1 and 2 seriously opposes the prayer for adjournment and contends that the construction intended by the respondent nos.1 and 2, which has already been started, is being unnecessarily stalled indefinitely due to the prolongation of the matter in view of the adjournments sought by the appellant.

4. It is further submitted that a probate was granted long back but the said fact was suppressed by the appellant in their application.

5. Be that as it may, since the proforma respondents, who were the plaintiffs in the suit before the trial court, have every right to use a rejoinder and bring their own pleadings on record, the respondent nos.1 and 2 are directed to serve a copy of their affidavit-in-opposition on the learned Advocate for the proforma respondent nos.10 to 14 during the course of the day. Rejoinder/reply, if any, shall be filed by the proforma respondent nos.10 to 14 to the said opposition within a week from date.

6. The time for filing reply by the appellant is also extended for a week.

7. The issues urged by learned counsel for the respondent nos.1 and 2 are kept open for being adjudicated at the time of disposal of the application and/or the appeal.

8. The application shall next be listed for hearing on July 8, 2025.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top