Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2026 DAILYLAW 41634 (CAL)

ATAL KUMAR MAITY AND ANR. v. SAHASARANGSU JANA

CO/3455/2025 · 2026-09-18

Hiranmay Bhattacharyya

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Court No. 6 (265719) 18.09.2026 (AD 7) (S. Banerjee) CO 3455 of 2026 Atal Kumar Maity & Anr. Vs. Sahasarangsu Jana CAN 1 of 2026 Mr. Agniswar Bhuinya …for the petitioners Mr. Kishore Mukherjee …for the opposite-party Though the matter is appearing under the heading ‘Extension of interim order’ with CAN 1 of 2026, the main civil revision application is taken up for hearing with the consent of the parties. This application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is at the instance of the pre- emptee and is directed against order no. 61 dated August 11, 2025 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division), 2nd Court at Tamluk in J. Misc. Case No. 27 of 2019. By the order impugned, the application praying for stay of all further proceedings in the pre-emption case on the ground that the issue regarding maintainability of a pre-emption application if the entire share of the raiyat is transferred, is pending before the larger bench, stood rejected. After going through the order impugned this Court finds that the pre-emption case is at the stage of evidence. 2 Whether the entire share of the vendor was transferred in favour of the pre-emptee/petitioners herein, is a matter that has to be gone into at the time of trial. What is the effect of the pendency of the issue before the larger bench is a matter to be considered by the learned trial judge at the time of final hearing of the pre-emption application. No useful purpose will be served in staying the further proceedings of the pre-emption case. The learned trial judge after perusing the pleadings recorded a prima facie view that no case of transfer of the entire share has been made out. This revisional application stands disposed of without interfering with the order impugned. It is, however, made clear that the petitioners will be entitled to raise all points in support of their claim at the time of hearing of the pre-emption application in accordance with law. Since the main civil revisional application has been disposed of, the application for extension of interim order being CAN 1 of 2026 has become infructuous and the same also stands disposed of. (Hiranmay Bhattacharyya, J.)