REVIEW PETITION None on 25 July 2014

07.04.2022 Item No.64 & 65 Court No.18

AJ.

RVW 37 of 2015

I.A. No. CAN 1 of 2017 (Old CAN 12279 of 2017)

CAN 2 of 2017 (Old CAN 12280 of 2017)

CAN 3 of 2022

CAN 4 of 2022

Girijabala Bhakat, since deceased, her heirs and legal representatives, Dilip Kumar Bhakat & Ors.

-Vs-

Ganesh Lal Bhakat, since deceased, Sarada Bhakat, since deceased, Fatik Chandra Bhakat, since deceased, his heirs and legal representatives, Arun Bhakat & Ors.

in

SA 870 of 1981

I.A. No. CAN 1 of 2002(Old CAN 6135 of 2002)

I.A. No. CAN 2 of 2004(Old CAN 1206 of 2004)

I.A. No. CAN 3 of 2004 (Old CAN 8114 of 2004) I.A. No. CAN 4 of 2011(Old CAN 4727 of 2011) (Not in file)

Mr. Sudhakar Biswas,

Ms. Sudipta Roy,

.… for the Review Applicants.

Mr. Balai Lal Sahoo,

Mr. Sankha Prasad Ray,

Mr. Chandan Chakraborty.

… for the Respondent No. 1(a).

The applications being I.A. No. CAN 1 of2002 (Old CAN 6135 of 2002), I.A. No. CAN 2 of2004 (Old CAN 1206 of 2004), I.A. No. CAN 3 of2004 (Old CAN 8114 of 2004 and I.A. No. CAN 4of 2011 (Old CAN 4727 of 2011) appearing in thelist were filed in connection with the secondappeal being SA 870 of 1981, the saidapplications have already been disposed of withthe disposal of the said second appeal.

In Re: I.A. No. CAN 1 of 2017

(Old CAN 12279 of 2017)

The petitioners, by the instant reviewapplication, are seeking review of the judgmentand decree dated July 25, 2014 whereby theSecond appeal being SA 870 of 1981 wasdismissed.

This is an application for recording death ofone of the respondents of the review applicationnamed Fatik Chandra Bhakat figured asrespondent no. 1(a)(i) in the memorandum ofReview.

The said respondent died on November 07,2017.

The application is defective since in the saidapplication it has not been stated in the saidapplication whether the said Fatik ChandraBhakat died intestate or not, to remove the saiddefect, Mr. Biswas, learned advocate for thepetitioners files a supplementary affidavit, whichis taken on record, the said defect, therefore,stands removed.

In the application it has been stated that theheirs and legal representatives of the saiddeceased respondent are already on record, assuch, the death of respondent no. 1(a)(i), FatikChandra Bhakat be recorded and accordingly his name be expunged from the cause-title of thememorandum of Review.

Department is directed to carry outnecessary correction in the cause-title of the saidmemorandum.

CAN 1 of 2017 (Old CAN 12279 of 2017) isthus disposed of without any order as to costs.

In Re: I.A. No. CAN 2 of 2017

(Old CAN 12280 of 2017)

This is an application for substitution ofheirs and legal representatives of the deceasedreview applicant no. 2, who died during thependency of the review appliction on May 11,2015.

The application has been filed out of timewithout any application for condonation of delayin filing the said application or without offeringany explanation in the application itself justifyingthe said delay.

CAN 2 of 2017 (Old CAN 12280 of 2017)is,therefore, dismissed without any order as tocosts.

IA : CAN 4 of 2022

This is an application for substitution of theheirs and legal representatives of one of theopposite parties to the review application namedMadhavi Gupta who has died on January 28,2020.

In the application, it has been prayed thatthe heirs and legal representatives of the saiddeceased opposite party be substituted as per theschedule of the said application but there is nosuch schedule appended to the said application.

IA: CAN 4 of 2022 is, dismissed being not inform without any order as to costs.

In Re : R.V.W. 37 of 2015

CAN 3 of 2022

The second appeal being S.A. 870 of 1981was dismissed by the judgment and decree datedJuly 25, 2014.

The appellants are seeking review of the saidjudgment on different grounds but neither of thegrounds satisfies the requirement of Order XLVIIRule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, inasmuchas the appellants/petitioners under the garb ofreview are seeking to challenge the locus standiof the plaintiffs, the respondents of the secondappeal to maintain the suit by re-opening theconcurrent findings on factual issues of theCourts below, affirmed in second appeal.

Besides, the memorandum of review wasfiled after expiry of period of limitation by 170days. The explanations offered in the applicationfor condonation of delay are not at all satisfactoryas such the said application for condonation ofdelay being C.A.N. 3 of 2022, is dismissed.

R.V.W. 37 of 2015 is, therefore, dismissedboth on merit as well as on the ground oflimitation, however, without any order as to costs.

After delivery of judgment Mr. Biswas praysfor stay of operation of this order, prayer isconsidered and rejected.

Urgent photostat certified copy of thisorder, if applied for, be supplied to the partiessubject to compliance with all requisiteformalities.

(Biswajit Basu, J.)