Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 7720 (CAL)

SUSAMA RAJPANDIT AND ORS. v. SWAPAN KUMAR PRADHAN AND ORS.

SA/376/1993 · 2025-01-24

Subhendu Samanta

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

24.1. 2025 item No.9 n.b. ct. no. 24 SA 376 of 1993 with IA No. CAN 1 of 2001(Old No. CAN 1703 of 2001) + IA No. CAN 2 of 2004(Old No. CAN 3751 of 2004) + IA No. CAN 3 of 2011(Old No. CAN 909 of 2011) + CAN 4 of 2016(Old No. 4061 of 2016) + CAN 5 of 2019(Old No. CAN 11193 of 2019) + CAN 6 of 2024 Sri Ram Rajpandit & Ors Vs. Sm. Sankari Pradhan Mr. Sudhakar Biswas, ….. for the appellants Mr. Kanai Lal Samanta …. For the applicant No.7(a) to 7(e). In Re. CAN 6 of 2024 This joint application of compromise is filed by and between the parties in the second appeal. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that after long legal battle between the parties, the friends and well wishers intervened and there was a compromise between the parties outside the court. In terms of compromise, inclined to settle the dispute between themselves by executing certain deeds.. They have entered their compromise in paragraph 4a,4b and 4c of the application being CAN 6 of 2024. Learned advocate for the parties also submits that all the parties to the second appeal has entered into compromise and they have signed in the application for compromise being CAN 6 of 2024. Thus, they seek necessary order. Heard the learned advocate for the parities. It also appears that all the parties to the second appeal have signed in the compromise application being CAN 6 of 2024. I have also perused the terms of compromise, it appears that the parties intends to transfer some portion of properties between themselves to settle the dispute, which was raised in the instant second appeal. The validity and legality of the transfer between the parties are only binding upon the parties itself, the same cannot be considered at this stage. The same be kept open to be decided in future. However, as the parties are entered into the compromise, so there is no impediment to dispose of the second appeal in terms of compromise. Under the above observation, CAN 6 of 2024 is considered and allowed. Let the second appeal be and the same be disposed of in terms of compromise entered into between the parties to the appeal at paragraph 4a, 4b and 4c of application being CAN 6 of 2024. Decree be framed accordingly. 2 CAN 6 of 2024 is disposed of. SA 376 of 1993 is also disposed of. Connected application, if pending are also disposed of. TCR, if received, be send down before the Court below immediately. All parties shall act on the server copy of this order duly downloaded from the official website of this Court. ( Subhendu Samanta, J.) 3