AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The certified copies of the Trial Court’s judgment and decree are filed in Court today and kept on record.
The documents handed over in Court today be kept on record.
We find therefrom that the valuation as depicted in the First Appellate Court’s decree tallies with the Trial Court’s decree. As such, the appeal is found to be in order insofar as valuation is concerned. Let the defect in that regard be deemed to stand cured. Leave is granted to the learned advocate-on-record for the appellant to rectify the memorandum of appeal during the course of the day by incorporating the name of the learned presiding Judges of the Courts below in the preamble thereof.
The present appeal has been preferred against judgments whereby both the Courts below have granted an eviction decree against the appellant under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the First Appellate Court, after adjudication of a connected repair application, did not grant further opportunity of hearing to the appellant and decided the appeal outright. Learned counsel hands up a server copy of an order dated September 24, 2025 passed in CO 2076 of 2025 whereby one of us (Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J.), sitting singly, had directed the appeal to be disposed of only after disposal of the pending repair application.
Learned counsel argues that the hearing of the appeal had been conducted lastly on September 9, 2025, whereas the revisional Court’s order was passed on September 24, 2025. The repair application was disposed of only on June 23, 2026 and thereafter, no further hearing was given to the parties. It is submitted that thus, the impugned judgment of the First Appellate Court is vitiated by patent illegality and the matter at least ought to be remanded to the Appellate Court for a fresh adjudication on merits.
However, from a true copy of order no. 35 dated September 9, 2025 passed in the title appeal, handed over by learned counsel for the appellant himself, we find that the appeal was heard in full on that date and the next date i.e. September 25, 2025 was only fixed for passing judgment.
Thus, when the revisional application was decided by this Court on September 24, 2025, no further hearing remained to be done before the First Appellate Court. The matter had already been fixed for delivery of judgment. It is only due to the direction of this Court that the learned First Appellate Court, in deference to the same, disposed of the repair application first before passing the judgment in the appeal.
In view of the hearing of the appeal having already been concluded prior to the revisional Court’s order, we do not find any substance in the argument of the appellant that merely by the direction to dispose of the interlocutory application first, the revisional Court had reopened a further opportunity for the parties to advance their arguments afresh, whereas the hearing had already been concluded and it was recorded by the First Appellate Court to have been so in the order dated September 9, 2025.
Even on merits, we find that both the Courts below have concurrently found that the notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act was held to be a valid one and its service proved. As such, there is no substantial question of law involved in the appeal and/or any illegality on the part of the Courts below.
Hence, SAT 173 of 2026 is dismissed under Order XLI Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
Accordingly, CAN 1 of 2026 is disposed of as well.
No order as to costs.
Urgent Photostat certified copies of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance of requisite formalities.