OD-6 APOT/204/2025 WITH CS/657/1990 IA NO: GA/1/2025 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Civil Appellate Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE VISHNU NARAYAN KASHYAP VS THE WEST BENGAL BOARD OF SECONDARY EDUCATION BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE ARIJIT BANERJEE And The Hon'ble JUSTICE OM NARAYAN RAI Date : September 17, 2025 Appearance: Mr. Dhruba Ghosh, Sr. Adv. Ms. Madhupriya, Adv. Mr. Aniruddha Sinha, Adv. ..for the appellant Mr. S. N. Mitra, Sr. Adv. Ms. Koyeli Bhattacharya, Adv. Mr. Sourav Sengupta, Adv. Mr. A. Baid, Adv. ..for the respondent Dictated by Arijit Banerjee, J. The Court: This appeal is directed against an order dated July 1, 2025, passed by a Learned Judge of this Court in CS/657/1990. The suit has been filed by the appellant for recovering khas and vacant possession of a property which is admittedly situate in the heart of the city of Calcutta. 2 The appellant says that the suit is pending for 35 years. The examination and cross-examination of the plaintiff’s witness were completed in 2010. Thereafter the defendant did not produce its witness. Now, the defendant has made two applications before the Learned Suit Court being GA/15/2025 and GA/16/2025 for leave to take steps for maintenance of the suit premises and for recall of the plaintiff’s witness for being cross-examined by the defendant’s counsel. This is nothing but dilatory tactics on the part of the respondent/defendant. The Learned Judge should not have entertained the applications and should not have directed exchange of affidavits on those applications. Being aggrieved, the plaintiff is before us. Learned Senior counsel appearing for the respondent/defendant strongly disputes the submission made on behalf of the appellant. He says that after the examination of the plaintiff’s witness was completed in 2010, the plaintiff took no steps to expedite the suit. Therefore, it does not lie in the mouth of the plaintiff to complain of the delay in progress of the suit. He further points out that although the present appeal against the order dated July 1, 2025, was presented on July 29, 2025, on August 20, 2025, the plaintiff obtained extension of time to file affidavits in connection with the applications mentioned above. Having done so, the plaintiff cannot maintain the present appeal. Learned Senior Counsel further says that the appeal is not maintainable also because the impugned order is not one of the orders mentioned in Order XLIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, nor is it a judgment within the meaning of Clause 15 of the Letters Patent. 3 We have considered the rival contentions of the parties. Without going into anything else, we do note that the suit is pending for a long 35 years. This is not a desirable state of affairs. We request the Learned Single Judge to make all endeavours to dispose of the two applications filed by the defendant being GA/15/2025 and GA/16/2025 at an early date. The plaintiff will be at liberty to file his opposition to the applications within a week from date. The defendant will be at liberty to file its reply thereto within one week after the puja vacation. The Learned Single Judge is requested to dispose of the aforesaid two applications within a month from the date of expiry of the time granted for exchange of affidavits. Thereafter, the Learned Judge is requested to take all necessary steps to ensure that the suit is disposed of within six months from the date of disposal of the two applications, without granting unnecessary adjournments to either of the parties and if necessary, by fixing frequent dates for hearing of the suit. We make this request to the Learned Single Judge also taking note of and order of a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court dated December 23, 2024, the relevant portion whereof is reproduced hereunder: 4. “Keeping in view that the suit has not been progressed thereafter, although interlocutory applications were filed from time to time, we feel that a liberty should be given to the appellant to adduce evidence in the suit subject to certain conditions. 5. The appellant shall deposit a sum of Rs.10 lakhs with the Registrar, Original Side, High Court within a period of a fortnight from date and in the event such deposit is made, the Registrar, Original Side 4 shall invest the said amount in a fixed deposit account with any nationalised bank yielding highest return and shall keep the said fixed deposit account renewed from time to time till the disposal of the suit. 6. The appellant undertakes that the appellant shall abide by the direction of the learned Single Judge with regard to the conduct of the proceedings and shall not fail to appear and produce its witness as and when directed. 7. There should not be any lack of due diligence on the part of the appellant in presenting its witness and participation in the said proceeding. 8. The hearing of the suit shall remain stayed for a period of fortnight. 9. In the event the said amount is not deposited, we would request the learned Single Judge to fix a date for arguments and dispose of the suit as expeditiously as possible. 10. We have been informed that the argument of the plaintiff had commenced and it appears from the order dated 11th January, 2023 that the matter was directed to appear on 2nd February, 2023 for further argument. However, the hearing is not concluded.” With the aforesaid observations, the appeal and the application stand disposed of. Since we have not called for affidavits, the allegations in the stay petition are deemed not to be admitted. (ARIJIT BANERJEE, J.) (OM NARAYAN RAI, J.) bp.