Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Ac Ganesh Chandra Das & Ors vs Shankar Chandra Das on 7 December, 2011
Author: Harish Tandon
Bench: Harish Tandon
1 Sl/ 07.12.11 C.O. 737 of 2007 11 ac Ganesh Chandra Das & Ors
-vs-
Shankar Chandra Das Mr. Nirmalya Pal ... For Petitioners Mr. Partha Banerjee Ms. Anima Maiti ... For Opposite Party In Re : CAN 8311 of 2011 This is an application for restoration of the writ petition, which was dismissed on 27th July 2011. The cause for non-appearance on the said date when the matter was dismissed for default has been shown in paragraph 3 of the said application which I find to be sufficient. Hence, the order dated 27th July 2011 is hereby recalled.
The revisional application is restored to its original file and number.
The application, being CAN 8311 of 2011, is allowed.
In Re : C.O. 737 of 2007 By consent of the parties, the revisional application is taken up for hearing.
This revisional application is directed against Order dated 20th December 2006 passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), 9th Court, Alipore in Title Suit No. 92 of 2004 by which an application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure is rejected.
2Suit for administration and accounts was instituted by the petitioner which was decreed in part, i.e., prayer for decree for administration was rejected and C.O. 737 of 2007 the decree for accounts was passed in preliminary form.
In the said suit, an application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure is taken out by the petitioner praying for an order to run the said business in rotation. Trial Court rejected the said application by the impugned order as it relates to administration and not accounts.
Once prayer for decree for administration is rejected by the trial Court, the said decree cannot be re- opened upon invocation of provision under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Prayer, which has been made in the said application, relates to modification and/or revival of a decree of dismissal, so far as it relates to administration.
I do not find any infirmity and/or illegality in the impugned order. The trial Court has rightly rejected the said application.
The revisional application is devoid of merit and is, thus, dismissed. However, there will be no order as to costs.
Urgent photostat certified copy be supplied to the parties, if applied for, on priority basis.
(Harish Tandon, J.)