Calcutta High Court
MAT/1634/2026 of JAY SANKAR MISTRI Vs STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS. on 1 October 2026
Item No.14 Ct. No. 1 RP IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE MAT/1634/2026 WITH IA No.CAN 1 OF 2026 JAY SANKAR MISTRI ]… Appellant VS THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS. ]… Respondents Appearance : Mr. Sukanta Chakraborty Mr. Arpan
ORDER SHEET
WBCHCA0497372026
Item No.14
Ct. No. 1
RP
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
APPELLATE SIDE
MAT/1634/2026
WITH
IA No.CAN 1 OF 2026
JAY SANKAR MISTRI
]… Appellant
VS
THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS.
]… Respondents
Appearance :
Mr. Sukanta Chakraborty
Mr. Arpan Guha
Mr. Saikat Dey
]… Advocate for Appellant
Mr. D. N. Ray, Ld. GP
Mr. Ajit Kumar Mishra, Ld. AGP
Mr. Rajmohan Chattoraj
Mr. Bikash Kumar Srivastava
]… Advocate for Respondents
Mr. Supratim Dhar, Sr. Adv.
Mr. S. Bhattacharyya
Mr. Ziaul Haque
]… Advocate for Respondent No.6
CORAM: RAVINDRA VITHALRAO GHUGE,
CHIEF JUSTICE
&
OM NARAYAN RAI J.
Date :01.10.2026
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.
Order
(Per Court)
1. Heard the Learned Counsels for the respective sides.
2. The submission of the Learned Counsel for the Appellant is that paragraph 6 and 7 of the Impugned Order of the Learned Single Judge, creates an impression that the entire parcel of land comprising Part A and B covered by the said observations. He submits that there is no dispute that Respondent No.6 before this Court, is in possession of Part A and the Appellant is in possession of Part B.
3. After hearing the Learned Counsel for the parties for some time, the Learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that he seeks leave to withdraw this Appeal and approach the Learned Single Judge in Review within 7 days, to point out that a clarification to paragraph nos.6 and 7 of the Impugned Order needs to be made in view of the Civil Suit, wherein Respondent No.6 has restricted his suit only to Part A of the land property and not for Part B. The Part A and B properties are described as ‘A’ Schedule Property and ‘B’ Schedule Property in the Title Suit No.441 of 2021 as well as in the Order of the Trial Court dated 03.08.2021.
4. In view of the above submissions, this Appeal is disposed off as withdrawn, on instructions. Pending Civil Application would not survive and stands disposed off.
5. All contentions as regards the Review Petition being filed by the Appellant, are kept open. (OM NARAYAN RAI, J.) (RAVINDRA V. GHUGE) Chief Justice