✦ Calcutta High Court

Sk. Samsuddin & Ors. v. Mojambel Haque & Ors.

C.O No. 2140 of 2016BISWAJIT BASU

Case at a glance

Judgment

Mr. Ramdulal Manna, Mr. Sayan Mukherjee … For the petitioners. Ms. Shila Sarkar, Mr. Tanmoy Mukherjee, Mr. Souvik Das, Mr. Rudranil Das … For the opposite parties. The pre-emptees in a proceeding under Section 8 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 are the petitioners of the present application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The application for pre-emption was allowed by the learned Trial Judge. The petitioners, aggrieved thereby, preferred an appeal being Miscellaneous Appeal No. 05 of 2012 before the 2nd Court of learned Additional District Judge at Malda, District – Malda. The pre-emptor/respondent died during the pendency of the said appeal. The petitioners took out an application for substitution of the heirs and legal representatives of the said deceased respondent. The appeal Court below by the order impugned being Order No. 37 dated April 26, 2016 has dismissed the said application as it was not moved 2 and consequently dismissed the said miscellaneous appeal. The petitioners instead of seeking recall of the said order straightway assailed it in the revisional application. Mr. Ramdulal Manna, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that his clients intend to seek recall of the said order instead of pursuing the present revisional application. In view of such stand of the petitioners, C.O. 2140 of 2016 is dismissed as not pressed without any order as to costs. Subject to limitation, the petitioners are at liberty to seek recall of the said Order No. 37 dated April 26,

2016. Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties subject to compliance with all requisite formalities. (Biswajit Basu, J.)

Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case

No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.

This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.

Why is this linked?

This is the original judgment text, reproduced from the public court record. Always verify it against the official record before relying on it in a filing — check it on Calcutta High Court or eCourts case status (search case no. C.O No. 2140 of 2016). ← Search more judgments