Calcutta High Court
CO/3448/2026 of FENTUSI BIBI Vs MUSAHAB HOSSAIN AND ANOTHER on 29 September 2026
sg 29-09-2026 Ct. 6 CO 3448 of 2026 Fentusi Bibi Versus Musahab Hossain & Anr. Mr. Prosenjit Kukherjee Mr. Arghya Kamal Das Ms. Babita Pramanik …for the petitioner This application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is at the instance of the pre-emptee and is directed
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.
Item-
33. sg
29-09-2026
Ct. 6
CO 3448 of 2026
Fentusi Bibi Versus Musahab Hossain & Anr.
Mr. Prosenjit Kukherjee Mr. Arghya Kamal Das Ms. Babita Pramanik
…for the petitioner
This application under Article of the Constitution of India is at the instance of the pre-emptee and is directed against an order being No. 13 dated 12th May, 2026 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Rampurhat, Birbhum in Misc. Case No. 9 of 2025 arising out of Misc. Appeal No. 6 of 2022. By the order impugned, the misc. appeal stood dismissed. Mr. Mukherjee, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner draws the attention of the Court to an order dated 14th August, 2023 by virtue of which the misc. appeal stood dismissed for default. He submits that thereafter, the petitioner filed an application under Oder 9 Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure being Misc. Case No. 9 of 2025 and therefore, there was no question of misc. appeal again being dismissed. The Misc. Preemption Case No. 45 of 2011 at the instance of the opposite parties was allowed by a judgment and order dated 14th February, 2020. Challenging the said judgment and order, the petitioner preferred a Misc. Appeal being No. 6 of 2022 along with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The appeal was preferred on 5th May, 2022 i.e. after more than two years of passing of the judgment and order in the preemption case.
The application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act could not be disposed of by the Court as the petitioner was found absent without steps. In the impugned order, the learned Additional District Judge has specifically recorded that after granting several opportunities to the petitioner, the Misc. Appeal, stood dismissed for default. It was further recorded that after the petitioner was directed to show cause for not taking step, the misc. appeal stood dismissed for default. Thereafter, the instant misc. case being no. 9 of 2025 was filed again after 2 years and 4 months. Mr. Mukherjee would vehemently contend that the petitioner was suffering from various ailments and in support of such contention, he referred to the medical documents which have been annexed to this civil revision application. This Court finds that the petitioner was not at all diligent in proceeding with the misc. appeal and taking steps thereafter. The learned trial judge after considering the medical documents observed that such medical documents demonstrate largely generic problem which cannot be deemed as sufficient ground for filing the misc. case after almost two and half years. This Court is not inclined to interfere with such factual finding returned by the learned Additional District Judge. The impugned order does not suffer from perversity. However, after going through the impugned order, this Court finds that in the ordering portion it has been recorded that the misc. appeal is dismissed instead of recording that the misc. case stood dismissed. It is recorded that the misc. case no. 9 of 2025 for restoration of Misc.
Appeal No. 6 of 2022 stands dismissed. This civil revision application stands disposed of with the aforesaid observation Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance of all requisite formalities.
(Hiranmay Bhattacharyya, J.)