Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Jharna Chowdhury & Ors vs Deb Sankar Kundu & Anr on 11 February, 2014
Author: Ashim Kumar Banerjee
Bench: Ashim Kumar Banerjee
1
4 11.02. S.A.T. 47 of 2011
ns
2014
Jharna Chowdhury & ors.
Versus
Deb Sankar Kundu & anr.
Mr. Aniruddha Chatterjee,
Mr. Surya Chatterjee ...... For the appellants.
Mr. Bidyut Kr. Banerjee, Sr. Adv.,
Ms. Shila Sarkar .... For the respondents.
We grant leave to the appellants to cure the defects if not already done earlier.
From the selfsame judgment and decree, the respondents filed a second appeal before this Court that is ready for hearing and appearing before the learned Single Judge.
The present appeal would also relate to the selfsame judgment and decree that is yet to be admitted.
We admit this appeal on the ground on which the other pending appeal was admitted as also on the additional following grounds:-
"I. For that the learned Appellate Court erred in partially reversing the finding of the Trial Court that there is no dearth of accommodation of the plaintiffs, without taking into consideration that the Advocate Commissioners' reports had not used a single word that a single room was kept under lock and key by the plaintiff no.1.
II. For that the learned Appellate Court ought not to have partially reversed the finding of the Trial Court without coming to a definite finding after considering the evidence on record that the room 2 allegedly under the possession of the Plaintiff no.1 was under lock and key as claimed by the plaintiffs.
III. For that the learned Appellate Court ought not to have partially reversed the finding of the Trial Court after coming to a finding that since the plaintiff witness no.2/ plaintiff no.1 is one of the joint owner of the suit premises he has every right to keep the room under lock and key, especially when he has specifically admitted in one of his pleading that he ceased to have any requirement in the suit house or suit premises, having acquired a separate flat of his own at Salt Lake and has since been residing there with his family.
IV. For that the learned Appellate Court below erred in holding that there is any reasonable requirement of the plaintiffs in the instant case even after existence of the present residential accommodation. V. For that the Learned Judge erred in law in overlooking the evidence as adduced by the parties and Commissioner report and passed an order of partial eviction which is total perverse.
VI. For that the learned Appellate Court erred in law in not appreciating the evidence and thereby passed an order of partial eviction which is contrary to the evidence."
The lower court records need not be called for as it is already available in this Court. The notice of appeal need not be sent as parties are all represented.
3Since the paper book has already been filed in the other appeal, we grant liberty to the appellants to prepare supplementary paper book, if required, incorporating additional papers, if any, to be relied upon by them, that are missed out.
( Banerjee, J. ) ( Arijit Banerjee, J.)