D/L. 23. August 17, 2026. MNS. SAT No. 168 of 2026 + CAN 1 of 2026 Sri Bharat Chandra Das Vs. Soumen Kumar Das Mr. Syamal Kumar Das, Ms. Smita Das, Advs. … for the appellant. Mr. Angsuman Chakraborty, Mr. Debdipto Banerjee, Sk. Md. Wasim Akram, Advs. …for the respondent. 1. The Second Appeal has been preferred against a judgment whereby the first appellate court dismissed an appeal preferred by the present appellant as time-barred, upon rejection of the connected condonation application. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits on instruction that although no consent was given to the learned Advocate conducting the case for the appellant in the trial court, apparently the final decree of partition impugned in the appeal was passed by recording consent. 3. From a bare perusal of the judgment preceding the final decree, we find that the learned Trial Judge recorded at the time of hearing that the lawyers for both parties to the suit verbally submitted before the court that they had no objection against the report of the Commissioner and had prayed for accepting the same; considering such 2 verbal submissions of learned lawyers for both parties, the court perused the case records and material on it and observed that the plaintiff had prayed for drawing up final decree on the basis of Commissioner’s report and since there was no objection, there was justification to allow the prayer. 4. Section 96(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure clearly debars any appeal from a consent decree. 5. Thus, irrespective of whether the appeal was time- barred or not, the same was also otherwise not maintainable in law. It is trite law that in the event any of the litigants has any dispute as to the recording of events which transpired in a particular court on a particular day or regarding whether consent was actually given, it is the self- same court, preferably while the concerned Presiding Officer is still in office, to approach the said court ventilating such grievance. 6. However, no appeal is maintainable against a consent decree. In any event, appeal would be an illusory remedy, since the appellate court would not be posted with the facts as to events which actually occurred before the trial court. 7. As such, we decline to admit the appeal under Order XLI Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 8. In the event the appellant is otherwise so entitled in law, nothing in the present dismissal shall debar the appellant from approaching the trial court which recorded the consent, disputing the same. 3 9. If so approached, subject to the law of limitation and upon giving an opportunity of hearing to all concerned, the learned Trial Judge may decide the same in accordance with law. 10. CAN 1 of 2026 is consequentially dismissed as well. 11. There will be no order as to costs. (Sandip Kumar De, J.) (Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J.)