Mr. Suhrid Sur … For & Ors. v. Kasutabh Mondal reported in (2019) 19 Supreme Court Cases
Case at a glance
- Bench
- BISWAJIT BASU
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India art. 227
- West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 s. 8
Judgment
Mr. Suhrid Sur … For the petitioner. Mr. Dhananjay Banerjee, Ms. Oindrila Ghosh … For the O.P. Nos. 1 to 4. The present application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is at the instance of the pre-emptee in a proceeding under Section 8 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 and is directed against the Order No. 13 dated November 21, 2019 passed by the Additional Court of learned Civil Judge(Junior Division) at Chandernagore, District–Hooghly in the said pre-emption proceeding being Pre-Emption Misc. Case No. 06 of 2019. The learned Trial Judge by the order impugned has allowed an application filed by the pre-emptors/opposite parties for addition of parties in the aforesaid Misc. case. In course of hearing of the revisional application, it transpired that the pre- emptors/opposite parties have not deposited the entire consideration price of the disputed sale along with the application for pre-emption. The said 2 default renders the application for pre-emption not maintainable as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Barasat Eye Hospital & Ors. vs. Kasutabh Mondal reported in (2019) 19 Supreme Court Cases 767. The aforesaid fact since is not in dispute, no useful purpose would be served by keeping the said application for pre-emption pending. The Pre-Emption Misc. Case No. 06 of 2019 is, therefore, dismissed without any order as to costs. The pre-emptor is permitted to withdraw the amount deposited by him at the time of filing the application for pre-emption. The learned Trial Judge is requested to expedite the refund of the said money. C.O. 4192 of 2019 is disposed of with the above terms without any order as to costs. 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.