Calcutta High Court
CO/4171/2025 of PRANATI MONDAL ALIAS PRONATI MONDAL Vs JOYDEB PAUL AND ANR on 22 September 2026
Ct. No.- 6 Aritra C.O. 4171 of 2025 Smt. Pranati Mondal @ Pronati Mondal Vs. Joydeb Paul & Anr. Mr. Debabrata Banerjee Mr. Tapojit Dey Ms. Ishita Ghosh Mr. Suraj Kumar Shaw ….for the petitioner Mr. Lal Mohan Hazra Mr. Somesh Panja Ms. Anuradha Hazra Ms. Moutusi Hazra
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- 766 22/09/2026 Ct. No.- 6 Aritra C.O. 4171 of 2025
Smt. Pranati Mondal @ Pronati Mondal Vs. Joydeb Paul & Anr.
Mr. Debabrata Banerjee Mr. Tapojit Dey Ms. Ishita Ghosh Mr. Suraj Kumar Shaw ….for the petitioner
Mr. Lal Mohan Hazra Mr. Somesh Panja Ms. Anuradha Hazra Ms. Moutusi Hazra ….for the opposite parties
This application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is at the instance of the plaintiff and is directed against an order dated April 21, 2025 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Div.), 1st Court at Sealdah in Ejectment Case No.205 of 2006. By the order impugned the application under Section 7(2) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 stood disposed of with a direction upon the opposite party to deposit a sum of Rs.9810/- within a period of one month from the date of passing of such order. The learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that the opposite party has not complied with the provisions of Section 7(1)(c) of the 1997 Act. He submits that in view of Section 7(1)(c) of the 1997 Act the tenant is obliged to deposit the rent in respect of a particular month within 15 of that month. He submits that the opposite party deposited the rent in the next month and thus there has been non-compliance of the provisions of Section 7(1)(C) of the 1997 act. The learned advocate appearing for the opposite party seriously disputes the submissions made by the learned advocate for the petitioner. He submits that immediately after the impugned order was passed the petitioner filed an application under Section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure for modification of the said order and the learned trial judge by an order dated August 18, 2025 has held that there has been no default on the part of the opposite party. He submits that such order has not been challenged by the petitioner before any superior forum. After going through the materials on record this Court finds that the opposite party has filed an application under Section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure praying for modification of the order dated April 21, 2025, which has been impugned in this civil revisional application. In the application under Section 152 of the Code petitioner prayed for taking into account the original court deposit challans for the months of February, 2009, June, July, November, December, 2011 and for September, 2012 till March, 2025 filed by the petitioner. The learned trial judge after considering the materials placed, passed an order on August 18, 2025 allowing the prayer for modification of the order dated April 21, 2025 upon holding that there has been no default on the part of the opposite party.
The said order has not been challenged by the petitioner before any superior forum. Thus, the order dated August 18, 2025 attained finality. Since the impugned order dated April 21, 2025 stood modified by the subsequent order dated August 18, 2025, nothing survives to be decided in this civil revisional application wherein the order dated April 21, 2025 has been assailed. Accordingly, CO 4171 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.)