Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2026 DAILYLAW 37310 (CAL)

GURUPADA ROY AND ANR v. PARIMAL MALLICK AND ORS

CO/4215/2025 · 2026-08-25

Rai Chattopadhyay

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

25.08.2026 Item No.36 Ct. No. 652 RP CO 4215 OF 2025 GURUPADA ROY & ANR. VS PARIMAL MALLICK & ORS. Mr. R. Mahato …… For Petitioners 1. The reasons cited by the learned trial Court in the impugned order dated 15.09.2025, passed by the same in Title Suit No.147 of 2021, that the defendants (petitioner in the instant revisional application) has not disputed in their written statement the signatures of the signatories over the alleged sale deed, appears to be perverse. 2. Specific challenge has been raised by the petitioners/defendants in the written statement, as well as in their counter claim, filed before the learned trial Court. The legality of the deed of conveyance has been specifically challenged by the petitioners/defendants in written statement filed before the learned trial Court. The petitioners/defendants have also, similarly, challenged the legality and validity of the deed of conveyance in their counter claim and 2 sought for relief that the deed of conveyance be declared as void and illegal. 3. Therefore, the impugned order dated 15.09.2025 in Title Suit No.147 of 2021 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division at Ranaghat, Nadia appears to be prima facie perverse and not in accordance with the records. The same is, thus, liable to be set aside. 4. In view of the facts and circumstances as above, the Court finds service of notice to be unnecessary in the instant case and service of notice to the opposite party is hereby waived. 5. The impugned order dated 15.09.2025 is set aside. 6. Let this revisional application be disposed of directing the learned trial Court to hear out the petition filed by the present petitioners/defendants under Order 26 Rule 10A read with Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code dated 25.09.2025 and to consider the same and decide upon afresh in due consideration of the records of the suit pending before it, after granting sufficient opportunity of hearing to the parties and as expeditiously as possible. 3 7. Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be delivered to the learned advocates for the parties, upon compliance of all formalities. (Rai Chattopadhyay, J.)