✦ Calcutta High Court

Sri Partha Sarathi Gupta v. Sri Indrajit Gupta

Case at a glance

Outcome

Set aside

the length of delay, the order impugned is set aside, subject to

Provisions considered

Judgment

Sri Partha Sarathi Gupta Vs. Sri Indrajit Gupta Mr. Siddhartha Lahiri Mr. Subhashis Saha Mr. Debraj Dutta Mr. B.N. Ray … for the Petitioner. … for the Opposite Party. Affidavit of service filed on behalf of the petitioner be kept with the record. This matter has been brought to the list at the instance of the petitioner for extension of interim order, but by consent of the parties, it is taken up for final disposal. The defendant in a suit for partition is the petitioner of the instant application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India which is directed against order no.13 dated April 18, 2024 passed by the 3rd Court of learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) at Barasat, District: 24 Parganas (North) in the said suit being Title Suit No.413 of 2021. The learned Trial Judge by the order impugned has refused to accept the belatedly filed written statement. The delay was of five months. Though there was no application for acceptance of the said Written Statement but considering the nature of the suit and the length of delay, the order impugned is set aside, subject to payment of costs of Rs. 5000/- by the petitioner to the opposite party within two weeks from date. CO 2052 of 2024 is accordingly disposed of. The learned Trial Judge is requested to expedite the disposal of the suit. Parties to act on the server copy of this order duly downloaded from the official website of this Court. Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties, subject to compliance of all requisite formalities. (Biswajit Basu, J.)

Questions this judgment answers

What did the Court decide in this case?

The Court recorded the following disposition: the length of delay, the order impugned is set aside, subject to

Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?

Constitution of India — art. 227.

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.

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 more judgments