Gouri Sankar Dinda & Anr. v. Rajesh Kumar Kabra & Ors.
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India art. 227
- West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 s. 8
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 O. VII r. 11
Judgment
17.7.2002, for the first time came to the knowledge of the petitioner/pre-emptor on 16.12.2013 and immediately, thereafter he applied for the certified cop and immediately after getting the certified copy, he has filed the aforesaid suit for preemption. The petitioners herein duly filed written objection contending that the said application under Section 8 of the said Act is hopelessly barred by law of limitation and the petitioner has no locus standi and is not competent to file the instant case for preemption. Accordingly, the petitioners herein have took out one application under Order VII rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure praying for an order of rejection of preemption application filed under Section 8 of the said Act on the ground that said application is ex facie barred by law of limitation. The opposite party no. 1 herein filed written objection in the said application and contended that he came to know about impugned sale deed on
16.12.2013. Learned Court below has taken up said application under Order VII rule 11 for hearing on
2.3.2019 and was pleased to reject the application by the impugned order. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the court below has failed to appreciate that the suit is ex facie barred by law of limitation in view of the fact that 3 the deed in question was executed long before 12 years of filing of the case. The deed was executed in the year 2002 and it was within the knowledge of each and everybody of the vendor’s family including the present pre-emptor and as such the contention of the pre-emptor that he came to know about such transaction for the first time on
16.12.2013 is absolutely incorrect and not at all reliable. Learned court below failed to consider that the limitation for making an application in the case of contiguous rayat is four months from the date of transfer. Accordingly, the petitioner has prayed for setting aside the impugned order. In this context, the learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a judgment passed by a coordinate bench of this court in C.O. 2221 of 1993 and also Supreme Court judgments reported in (2008) 14 SCC
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — art. 227; West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 — s. 8; Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — O. VII r. 11.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Calcutta High Court, on 24 Feb 2023. The bench was AJOY KUMAR MUKHERJEE.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No treatment data yet for this judgment in the Courts & Cases corpus.
Absence of data is not a statement about the judgment’s standing — the corpus covers only judgments we index and link with cited evidence.