Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2026 DAILYLAW 38817 (CAL)

BHISWADEB BISWAS v. RABINDRA NATH BISWAS

CO/2591/2026 · 2026-09-02

Hiranmay Bhattacharyya

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Court No. 6 (265719) 02.09.2026 (AD 27) (S. Banerjee) CO 2591 of 2026 Bhiswadeb Biswas Vs. Rabindra Nath Biswas Mr. Sarbananda Sanyal Ms. Poulami Chakraborty Mr. Samrat Chakraborty …for the petitioner Mr. Sankar Paul Mr. Prasit Sinha Kumari Shipra Roy …for the opposite-party This application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is at the instance of a third- party and is directed against order no. 6 dated July 24, 2026 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Tehatta, Nadia in Misc. Appeal No. 4 of 2026. By the order impugned the learned Judge of the appellate court rejected the application for stay on the ground that the delay in filing the appeal is yet to be condoned. Mr. Sanyal, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that the delay in filing the said appeal was caused as the petitioner initially preferred a civil revision application under the advice of the learned advocate and after the said civil revision application stood disposed of by granting liberty to 2 the petitioner to prefer the instant miscellaneous appeal, the said appeal was filed. Mr. Sanyal, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner places reliance upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court dated April 11, 1983 in the case of Sri Rani Satiji Mandir & Ors. –Vs.- Shyam Sundar Jhunjhunwala & Ors. in support of his contention that for the ends of justice the order of stay could be passed pending decision on the application for condonation of delay. Learned advocate appearing for the opposite party submits that the petitioner is not in possession of the suit property. He submits that in view of the statutory bar under Order 41 Rule 3A of the Civil Procedure Code, the learned Judge of the appellate Court was right in rejecting the application for stay. Heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and perused the materials placed. After going through the impugned order this Court finds that the application filed by the petitioner for stay of all further proceedings of the execution case was rejected only on the ground that the delay in filing the miscellaneous appeal is yet to be condoned by placing reliance upon Order 41 Rule 3A of the Civil Procedure Code. 3 The Hon’ble Division Bench in Sri Rani Satiji Mandir (supra) held that if the justice of the case so demands, an order of stay can be passed provided an application for condonation of delay application has been filed. In the case on hand it is not in dispute that an application for condonation of delay has been filed. For such reason, this Court is inclined to pass an order of stay of all further proceedings of the execution case for a limited period. There shall be an order of stay of all further proceedings in Title Execution Case No. 6 of 2016 pending before the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Tehatta, Nadia till the end of the month of December, 2026 or till the disposal of the application for condonation of delay by the learned Judge of the appellate Court in Misc. Appeal No. 4 of 2026 and the stay application filed in the said appeal. Considering the fact that the date of hearing of the Section 5 application before the learned Judge of the appellate court in the said miscellaneous appeal is fixed on November 19, 2026, the petitioner is directed to serve a copy of the Section 5 application to the learned advocate appearing for the opposite-party before the learned Judge of the appellate court on or before September 8, 2026. 4 The opposite-party will be at liberty to file the written objection to the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act on or before September 15, 2026. The learned Judge of the appellate court is requested to take up the hearing of the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act on November 19, 2026 and make an endeavour to dispose of the same as expeditiously as possible, preferably on or before the end of the month of December, 2026, without granting any unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance of requisite formalities. (Hiranmay Bhattacharyya, J.)