Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Madhusudhan @ Madhusudan Das vs Ashoke Banerjee & Anr on 15 September, 2017
Author: Jyotirmay Bhattacharya
Bench: Jyotirmay Bhattacharya
1
15.09.2017. F.M.A.T. 157 of 2016
Item No.376 with
Ct. No.14 CAN 1645 of 2016
dc. with
CAN 1651 of 2016
Madhusudhan @ Madhusudan Das
versus
Ashoke Banerjee & Anr.
Mr. Dipankar Dandapath,
Mr. Bhaskar Seth ... For the Appellant/Applicant.
Mr. Prasanta Kumar Banerjee ... For the Respondents.
Re: CAN 1645 of 2016 (condonation of delay) The instant miscellaneous appeal was filed beyond the prescribed period of limitation. There was 43 days delay in filing this appeal. Reason for the delay has been explained by the appellant/applicant in this application.
We are satisfied with the explanation given by the appellant/applicant in the application for condonation of delay. Accordingly, we condone delay in filing this appeal. Let the appeal now be registered.
The application for condonation of delay being CAN 1645 of 2016 is, thus, disposed of.
Re: FMAT 157 of 2016 This appeal will be heard.
2Let the lower court records be called for by Special Messenger at the cost of the appellant. Such cost will be deposited by the appellant within a week from date.
The concerned department will take steps for bringing the lower court records immediately on deposit of such special messenger's cost. The concerned department is further directed to examine the lower court records immediately upon receipt of the same.
The concerned department is also directed to serve notice of arrival of the lower court records upon the learned advocate-on-record of the appellant immediately after the records are found complete on such examination.
The appellant is directed to file requisite number of paper books in the concerned department within eight weeks from the date of service of notice of arrival of the lower court records upon the learned advocate-on-record of the appellant.
Since the respondents have already entered appearance in this matter through their learned advocate, service of notice of appeal upon the respondents is dispensed with. The appeal is thus treated ready as regards service of notice of appeal upon the respondents.
Re: CAN 1651 of 2016 (Stay) After hearing the learned advocates of the parties and after considering the stay application, we dispose of the stay application by staying all further proceedings of Title Suit No. 3 181 of 2006 pending before the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), 1st Court, Shrirampur, Hooghly till the disposal of the appeal.
The application for stay being CAN 1651 of 2016 is, thus, disposed of.
Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties as expeditiously as possible.
(JYOTIRMAY BHATTACHARYA, J.) ( SHIVAKANT PRASAD, J. )