Calcutta High Court
RVW/92/2026 of ABUL KALAM AZAD AND ANR Vs SOUMITRA KUMAR JHA AND ORS. on 17 September 2026
Item No. 8 pk RVW 92 of 2026 CAN 1 of 2026 CAN 2 of 2026 Abul Kalam Azad and another Vs. Soumitra Kumar Jha and others In FMA 287 of 2023 Mr. Subir Banerjee, Ms. Sudeshna Maji, Mr. Sayan Kanjilal … For the Applicant. Mr. B. N. Ray … For the respondents/appellants. 1. Learned
17.09.2026
Court No.13
Item No. 8
pk
RVW 92 of 2026
CAN 1 of 2026
CAN 2 of 2026
Abul Kalam Azad and another
Vs.
Soumitra Kumar Jha and others
In
FMA 287 of 2023
Mr. Subir Banerjee,
Ms. Sudeshna Maji,
Mr. Sayan Kanjilal
… For the Applicant.
Mr. B. N. Ray
… For the respondents/appellants.
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. Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to file fresh application for condonation of delay in filing the review application, inter alia, on the ground that it has not been properly drafted and the delay has not been properly explained.
2. This Court, however, notes that the order of the Single Bench was affirmed by order dated 28th August, 2025. This Court had directed the Collector, Malda to effect necessary entries after cancellation of forged title deeds.
3. It is submitted by counsel for the appellants/writ petitioners that the cancellation of deeds has already occurred.
4. At the time of mutation, this review application is being cited to indicate pendency of proceedings before
2 this Court. Mutation and/or rectification of records is being delayed on this ground.
5. Be that as it may, this Court does not find any error apparent on the fact of record or any new evidence hither to not available to the applicant produced along with the review application.
6. The application, therefore, does not fall under four corners of the order of 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
7. Hence, condonation of delay being CAN 1 of 2026 is allowed.
8. RVW 92 of 2026 shall stand dismissed. Consequently, CAN 2 of 2026 shall also stand dismissed.
9. There will be no order as to costs.
(Rajasekhar Mantha, J.)
(Ajay Kumar Gupta, J.)