Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Sri Prabir Kumar Misra vs Jagadish Prasad Mochi Alias on 26 November, 2025
Author: Supratim Bhattacharya
Bench: Supratim Bhattacharya
AD -4
Ct No.16
26.11.2025
(SSS)
SAT 261 of 2025
with
CAN 1 of 2025
with
CAN 2 of 2025
Sri Prabir Kumar Misra
Vs.
Jagadish Prasad Mochi alias
Jagadish Prasad Chawla alias Sri Jagadish Prosad Mochi @
Chawla
Mr. Shibendranath Chattopadhyay,
Mr. Sanket Chanda,
Ms. Ankita Misra
......For the appellant.
1. This appeal will be heard on the following
substantial questions of law:-
(i) Whether the learned first appellate Judge
substantially erred in law in overlooking the
evidence to the effect that the
defendant/respondent had permitted a shoe
business to be run from the suit premises in the name of a company and that the trade license for such business was not in the name of the defendant, in coming to the conclusion that the plaintiff/appellant has failed to prove his case of sub-letting.
(ii) Whether the learned first appellate court substantially erred in law in reversing the finding of the learned Trial Judge to the effect that the 2 plaintiff/appellant has reasonable requirement for the suit premises on the basis of the possession of other rooms of the plaintiff/appellant in the suit building having been suppressed, by overlooking the fact that in a different suit for eviction of a different tenant, although in respect of the same suit building, an inspection had been held from the report of which it is seen that all the other rooms in the suit building are tenanted and, as such, cannot tantamount to the plaintiff/appellant having sufficient alternative accommodation.
(iii) Whether, in view of the additional documents sought to be produced under Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure before this court, the Commissioner's report filed in a different suit in connection with the same suit building ought to be admitted in evidence and consequentially the decree passed by the trial court on the ground of reasonable requirement ought to be sustained.
2. CAN 1 of 2025 is an application for keeping in abeyance the ejectment execution case filed on the premise of the trial court's decree, which has been upset by the appellate court.
3. However, there is no scope of passing such order within the limited context of the present second appeal. Accordingly, CAN 1 of 2025 is disposed of in the light of the above observations. 3
4. CAN 2 of 2025 is an application for production of additional evidence and, by its very nature, is required to be heard along with the appeal. Accordingly, CAN 2 of 2025 shall be listed along with the appeal at the time of final hearing of the appeal. Affidavits, if any, shall be exchanged by the parties in respect thereof in the meantime.
5. The appellant shall serve copies of CAN 2 of 2025 along with the copy of the memorandum of appeal on the respondent and file an affidavit of service to that effect when CAN 2 of 2025 is next taken up for hearing by the Hon'ble Single Judge having determination.
6. The appellant shall put in postal costs and requisites for service of notice of the appeal on the respondent within a week from date.
7. The trial court records shall be brought by special messenger at the cost of the appellant, also to be deposited within a week.
8. The appellant shall prepare and file the requisite number of informal paper books without comparing with the records within six weeks from the date of service of notice of arrival of the trial court records on the learned Advocate for the appellant.
9. Liberty to the parties to mention the appeal for enlistment, upon the same being made ready, 4 before the appropriate learned Single Judge having determination.
(Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J.) (Supratim Bhattacharya, J.)