Calcutta High Court
CO/949/2025 of ACHINTYA CHOUDHURY Vs SHAMBHU CHARAN CHOUDHURY AND ORS on 30 September 2026
Ct. No.- 6 Aritra C.O. 949 of 2025 Achintya Choudhury Vs. Shambhu Charan Choudhury & Ors. With CAN 1 of 2025 Mr. Sujay Bandyopadhyay Mr. Jagajyoti Das Mr. Balai Kumar Sanfui Mr. Subhamoy Dutta ….for the petitioner In Re:- CAN 1 of 2025 This is an application for restoration of
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.
M/L- 1714 30/09/2026 Ct. No.- 6 Aritra C.O. 949 of 2025
Achintya Choudhury Vs. Shambhu Charan Choudhury & Ors. With CAN 1 of 2025
Mr. Sujay Bandyopadhyay Mr. Jagajyoti Das Mr. Balai Kumar Sanfui Mr. Subhamoy Dutta ….for the petitioner
In Re:- CAN 1 of 2025 This is an application for restoration of the civil revision application which was dismissed for default on April 28, 2025. After hearing the learned advocates for the petitioner, this Court is inclined to allow the prayer for restoration of the civil revisional application. Accordingly, CAN 1 of 2025 stands allowed. The civil revisional application is restored to its original file and number. In Re: CO 949 of 2025 This application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is at the instance of the plaintiff and is directed against an order dated November 21, 2024 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Div.), 1st Court at Malda in Partition Suit No.1 of 2022. By the order impugned the application filed by the petitioner under Section 4 of the Partition Act, 1893 stood rejected. Section 4 of the Partition Act, 1893 states that where a share of a dwelling-house belonging to an undivided family
2
has been transferred to a person who is not a member of such family and such transferee sues for partition, the Court shall, if any member of the family being a shareholder shall undertake to buy the share of such transferee, make a valuation of such share in such manner as it thinks fit and direct the sale of such share to such shareholder, and may give all necessary and proper directions in that behalf. It is not in dispute that in the case on hand the stranger purchaser has not sued for partition. For such reason the learned trial judge was right in rejecting the application under Section 4 of the Partition Act, 1893, this Court is not inclined to interfere with such order. Accordingly, CO 949 of 2025 stands dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. All parties shall act on the server copy of this order duly downloaded from the official website of this Court.
(Hiranmay Bhattacharyya, J.)