ORDER O – 4 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION ORIGINAL SIDE APOT/72/2026 IA NO: GA/2/2026 AKHTER MAHMUD AND ANR VS MUSTARI BEGUM AND ORS BEFORE: The Hon’ble JUSTICE SHAMPA SARKAR The Hon’ble JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR GUPTA Date: 9th June 2026. Appearance: Mr. Aviroop Chatterjee, Adv. Mr. Abir Lal Chakraborty, Adv. Mr. Rishav Das, Adv. Ms. NavyaDube, Adv. … forAppellants. The Court:- The impugned order is quoted below:- “1. The learned advocate for the private respondents would submit that the private respondents were all along ready and willing to adhere to the development-cum-tenancy agreement dated 13th November 2020 and are also ready and willing to make over the flat having an area of 300 sq.ft. comprising two rooms with one attached bath-cum-privy, excluding the north facing attached balcony with all other amenities attached thereto, on the fifth floor at premises no. 17/1, Ripon Street, P.O. and P.S. – Park Street, Kolkata – 700016 (hereinafter referred to as the “said premises”) in favour of the petitioner no.1; and two rooms on the ground floor back of the newly constructed building at the said premises to the petitioner no.2. 2. Having regard to the submission made in Court today, I am of the view that pendency of the writ petition shall not stand in the way of the private respondents to issue appropriate letter to the petitioner nos.1 and 2. 3. Let this matter stand over and appear under the heading “To Be Mentioned” on 26th February 2026.” 2 We do not find that, directions which are adverse to the interest of the appellants have been passed. Upon considering the submissions of the appellants that they were willing to hand over possession to the writ petitioner Nos.1 and 2. His Lordship recorded that the pendency of the writ petition would not stand in the way of the appellants to issue an appropriate letter to the petitioner Nos.1 and 2. Under such circumstances, if this was a case of wrong recording of the submissions, the remedy of the appellants would have been before the concerned judge himself and not before an appellate court. We are also informed that the writ petition has since been disposed of and the final order is under challenge before this Court in another appeal. Under such circumstances, we will hear the appeal from the final order independently. We are not in a position to decide whether there was wrong recording. We have already observed that, the principle of law is well settled in this regard. If a party alleges that a court had recorded the submissions incorrectly or erroneously, the said party ought to have approached that court for modification or recalling of such recording. We are not in a position to decide what had actually transpired during the proceeding. The appeal stands dismissed. (SHAMPA SARKAR, J.) (AJAY KUMAR GUPTA, J.) S. Kumar