Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2026 DAILYLAW 795 (CAL)

SUBIR KR BOSE AND ANR v. PRABIR SOME AND ANR

FMAT/494/2025 · 2026-01-13

Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, Supratim Bhattacharya

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

13th January, 2026 (AK) 54 F.M.A.T 494 of 2025 IA No: CAN 1 of 2025 CAN 2 of 2025 Subir Kumar Bose and another Vs. Prabir Some and another Mr. Sourav Kumar Mukherjee Ms. Sahana Pal Mr. Souhardya Mitra ...for the appellants. Mr. Sounak Bhattacharya Mr. Sounak Mandal Mr. Anirban Saha Roy ...for the respondents. 1. Affidavit-of-service filed in court today be kept on record. 2. It is pointed out by learned counsel for the plaintiffs/respondent no.1 that the appeal is not maintainable before this court due to lack of pecuniary jurisdiction. 3. We find from the valuation statement of the plaint filed in the suit, from which the present appeal arises, is that the same has been valued at Rs.60,100/-. 4. Accordingly, this court does not have pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the appeal. 5. At this, learned counsel for the appellants seeks to withdraw the appeal. 2 6. Accordingly, FMAT 494 of 2025, along with the connected applications, bearing CAN 1 of 2025 and CAN 2 of 2025, are dismissed as withdrawn without any order as to costs. 7. It is made clear that the merits of the appeal have not been entered into by this court. 8. Liberty is given to the learned Advocate-on-record for the appellants to take back the certified copy of the impugned order from the department upon furnishing a photocopy of the same. 9. Urgent photostat copies of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties upon compliance of all requisite formalities. (Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J.) (Supratim Bhattacharya, J.)