High CourtsSingle Bench(2020) 02 CAL CK 0030

Arindam Mondal vs Sasanka Sekhar Jana & Ors

Calcutta High Court · Decided on 5 February 2020

HON’BLE JUDGES
Rajasekhar Mantha, J
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Review (RVM) No. 186 Of 2019 With Civil Application (CAN) No. 8027 Of 2019 In Civil Order/Misc.Cas (CO) No. 2003 Of 2016

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

18 paragraphs · 339 words

Rajasekhar Mantha, J

The instant review application was heard and adjourned on three occasions. Review is sought of an order dated April 10, 2019 passed in an application

under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

The orders of two Courts which had concurrently found that the opposite party-respondent was entitled to maintain a right of preemption was upheld

by this Court. This Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution had found no ground for interference. There was no act either

in excess of jurisdiction or failure to exercise jurisdiction found in the orders passed by the two Courts below.

The observations from this Court that a decree is required to be registered, to indicate demarcation of the property, was not the only ground that was

germane to the rejection of the application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

This Court has considered the evidence on record and the findings of the two Courts below are plausible since the jurisdiction under Article 227 of the

Constitution is not akin to an appeal, this Court finds no reason to Review the order dated April 10, 2019.

It further appears that the arguments advanced now in Review by a new set of Ld. Advocates were not made by the then Ld. Advocates at the time

when the Order dated 10th April 2019 was passed. The Appeal in the court below is sought to be reargued by the Review Applicants. Such practice

cannot and should not be encouraged.

Hence, the application for review shall stand dismissed. In the special circumstances of the instant case, there shall be no order for costs.

Interim order, if any, shall stand vacated. In view of the dismissal of the review application, the connected application being CAN 8027 of 2019 also

stands dismissed.

The learned Counsel for the petitioner prays for a stay of operation and/or continuation of an earlier stay, which is considered and refused.

Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties.