Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Sri Shyamal Debnath vs Sri Narayan Debnath @ Harinarayan ... on 28 June, 2016
1
In The High Court At Calcutta
Civil Appellate Jurisdiction
28-06-2016 Appellate Side
sb-9
. R.V.W.No.203 of 2013
Sri Shyamal Debnath
-vs-
Sri Narayan Debnath @ Harinarayan Debnath & Ors.
with
CAN No.12033 of 2015
with
RVW No.204 of 2013
The Chairman, Santipur Municipality
-vs-
Sri Narayan Debnath @ Harinarayan Debnath & Ors.
with
CAN No.11835 of 2015
arising out of
MAT No.816 of 2013
Mr. Susanta Kundu ...for the applicant
(in RVW No.204 of 2013)
Mr. Indranath Mukherjee
Mr. Sukanta Mondal ...for the applicant
(in RVW No.203 of 2013)
Mr. Mrinal Kanti Mukherjee...for the respondent no.1
(appellant in MAT No.816 of 2013) The review has been sought for against an order dated August 26, 2013 passed by a Division Bench of this court in MAT No.816 of 2013 (Narayan Debnath @ Harinarayan -vs- The State of West Bengal & Ors.) to which one of us was a party (Gupta, J).
2There are two review applications - one by Sri Shyamal Debnath and another by the Chairman of Santipur Municipality, the second and the fourth respondents in MAT No.816 of 2013 respectively. We have been given to understand that the review has been sought for on the grounds that some important pieces of evidence have subsequently been discovered which, in spite of due diligence on the part of the applicants, could not be produced before this court when the appeal was heard. Neither Mr Indranath Mukherjee, learned advocate appearing for Shyamal Debnath nor Mr Kundu, learned advocate appearing for the Municipality, has been able to draw our attention to any piece of evidence which they have subsequently been able to discover. Both of them prayed for accommodation.
In that view of the matter, the review applications are directed to be listed after four weeks as prayed for.
(Girish Chandra Gupta, J) (Asha Arora, J) 3