0602 2025 THURSDAY Court : 08 Item : DL-02 Matter : FA Status : DNM Bench ID : 266048 Transcriber : NANDY IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE FA 153 OF 2015 with CAN 7 OF 2024 MS. RAJKUMARI ROY & ANR. VS. SAMBHU NATH ROY & ORS. MR. KARUNASHIH CHAKRABORTY, ADVOCATE MS. DAMAYANTI NANDI KUNDU, ADVOCATE ……for the Appellants CAN 7 OF 2024 1. This is an application for restoration of the instant appeal which was dismissed for default on 07.10.2024. 2. After perusing the averments made in the instant application and upon hearing the learned Counsel for the appellant, we are satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause on the said fateful day when the matter was called on for hearing. 3. The application for restoration being CAN 7 of 2024 is thus allowed and disposed of. 4. Consequently, the appeal being FA 153 of 2015 is restored to its original file and number. FA 153 of 2015 5. The attention of the learned Counsel for the appellant is drawn to the provisions of Section 388 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 for the simple reason that the Civil Judge (Senior Division) who has been vested with the power in relation to grant of succession certificate, which is ordinarily vested with the District Judge and, therefore, the question arises whether the appeal against such an order is appealable before the High Court. P a g e | 2 6. Sub-section (2) of Section 388 of the said Act provides that, in the event, any order is passed by a Court inferior in grade to a District Judge exercising the power under Part-X of the said Act, the appeal would lie to the District Judge and not to the High Court. 7. We are conscious that a substantial period has elapsed because of the pendency of the instant appeal before this Court which is not maintainable in view of the aforesaid provision. 8. It appears that the appellant has proceeded in good faith on the wrong advice of the Counsel for the appellant. 9. Since the appeal is not maintainable. The same being FA 153 of 2015 is dismissed as such. 10. However, the dismissal shall not prevent the appellant to challenge the selfsame order before the appropriate forum. 11. Let the record of the Trial Court, arrived to this Court, be immediately sent by the Department through Special Messenger at the costs of the appellant. 12. Such costs shall be put in by Monday i.e. 10.02.2025. (HARISH TANDON, J.) (PRASENJIT BISWAS, J) P a g e | 3