Calcutta High Court
FMAT/2/2026 of KHALILUR RAHMAN MONDAL ALIAS MOLLA AND ORS Vs FOOLJAN BIBI AND ORS on 5 October 2026
23 Ct No.16 05.10.2026 (SSS) FMAT 2 of 2026 with CAN 1 of 2026 with CAN 2 of 2026 Khalilur Rahaman Mondal @ Molla and Ors. Vs. Fooljan Bibi and Ors. Mr. Wasim Ahmed, Md. Saifur Rahaman, Ms. Nagma Parveen, Advs. ....for the appellants. Mr. Iftekar Munshi, Adv. …for the respondent nos. 1
AD – 23
Ct No.16
05.10.2026
(SSS)
FMAT 2 of 2026
with
CAN 1 of 2026
with
CAN 2 of 2026
Khalilur Rahaman Mondal @ Molla and Ors.
Vs.
Fooljan Bibi and Ors.
Mr. Wasim Ahmed,
Md. Saifur Rahaman,
Ms. Nagma Parveen, Advs.
....for the appellants.
Mr. Iftekar Munshi, Adv.
…for the respondent nos. 1 to
11, 13 & 14.
Mr. Kaustav Banerjee,
Ms. Ria Kundu, Advs.
….for the respondent nos. 32 to 34.
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. The impugned order of temporary injunction was passed in the year 2020. However, the present appeal has been preferred only in the year 2026.
2. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants, in support of the condonation application, submits that the appellants are cultivators and are lay persons in the field of law.
3. It is further submitted that although the impugned order was passed long back, the appellants subsequently appeared in the suit only in the year 2024 and were not aware at the relevant point of time regarding the impugned order. Upon coming to know of the said order, the present challenge has been preferred.
4. However, we fail to convince ourselves as to what prevented the appellants from taking information about the orders passed in connection with the suit, including the present impugned order of the year 2020, at least from the moment the appellants entered appearance in the suit, that is, in the year 2024. Having once entered appearance in the suit in 2024, the appellants cannot seek shelter under the pretext that they are lay persons in the field of law and/or had no knowledge of the injunction order passed in the self-same suit. If the appellants did not have any knowledge of the said order, despite having appeared in the suit as long back as in the year 2024, it is only the appellants themselves who are to blame for such ignorance. However, such ground is not sufficient explanation for the delay of about six years in preferring the appeal.
5. Accordingly, CAN 1 of 2026 is dismissed on contest, thereby refusing to condone the delay in preferring FMAT 2 of 2026.
6. Consequentially, FMAT 2 of 2026 stands dismissed as time-barred.
7. As a result, CAN 2 of 2026 stands disposed of.
8. There will be no order as to costs.
9. Urgent photostat certified copies of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance of all requisite formalities. (Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J.) (Sandip Kumar De, J.)