✦ Calcutta High Court

Apurba Ghatak v. Mrinal Kanti Roy & Ors.

HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA

Case at a glance

Provisions considered

Judgment

Mr. Dipanjan Roy Mr. Soumyadeep Biswas … for the petitioner This application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is at the instance of the plaintiff praying for a direction upon the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Bishnupur, Bankura to dispose of Title Suit No. 32 of 2016 expeditiously. The learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that the suit is otherwise ready for hearing. In view of the order sought and proposed to be passed, there is no necessity to direct issuance of any notice upon the opposite parties. However, the learned advocate-on-record of the petitioner shall be obliged to forward a copy of this application along with this order, upon the opposite parties or upon the learned advocate representing them before the learned trial judge. 2 In the light of the submissions made by the learned advocate appearing for the petitioner CO 3197 of 2025 stands disposed of by requesting the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Bishnupur, Bankura to make an endeavour to dispose of the Title Suit No. 32 of 2016 as expeditiously as possible without granting any unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties. (Hiranmay Bhattacharyya, 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 more judgments