Jogesh Ch. Biswas v. Uttam Biswas @ Maran Biswas And ORS.
INTHEHIGHCOURTOFTRIPURA AGARTALA CRP.No.69of2013 Onthedeathofsolepetitioner, JogeshCh.Biswas,hislegalheirs 1.SriSukumarBiswas,
2.SriRabindraCh.Biswas,
3.SriPradipBiswas,
4.Smt.SnehlataBiswas(Nama),
5.Smt.AnumatiBiswas, 6.MissAyasiBiswas(minor),
!" # $
# % & %
' (#) * +,--./0 7.Smt.KanaklataBiswas(Sarkar), 1
$
2 &
' (# ) * 8.Smt.DebikaBiswas, 34 54
1 "
&
6 '
(#) *
9.Smt.JayashriBiswas(Das), +4
' & ' (# ) * 10.Smt.ManishaBiswas(Dutta), 34
$
7 & 4
' (#* ) 11Smt.SuklaBiswas, ' 4
34 3
) "
& '
6 '
(#* ) 12.Smt.RakhiBiswas(Das) 4
$
2 & ( ) '
(#* ) ......Petitioners -Versus- 1.SriUttamBiswas@MaranBiswas, '
2. On the death of the respondent No.2, Makhan Chandra Biswas, hislegalheirs (a)Smt.SarathiRaniBiswas, 51
(b)SriMunnaBiswas, 51
(c)SriRanaBiswas, 51
#
(
" ' (#* ) 3. On the death of the respondent No.3, Nitai Chandra Biswas, his legalheirs (i)Smt.JugalRaniBiswas,
(ii)SriMihirBiswas,
(iii)Smt.LipiBiswas,
(iv)Smt.BultiBiswas,
# ( $
#
'(#* ) (v)Smt.SilpiBiswas(Sarkar), 1
' (* ) 4.SriGourangaBiswas, 7(
' (#* ) ......Respondents BEFORE THEHON'BLEMR.JUSTICES.TALAPATRA 8
953
'$( 8
95
1 '$( 571'$(
923.04.2015 $ 4 2 )
9 Yes No √
JUDGMENT&ORDER(ORAL) 5 3
(
5
1 ( 5 7 1 (
[2] * '( 00,
+
4 .
/.0./0 5( /: 0./.
' (
0) * '
[3]*
(
(
(
($
(
$
$ 0 '
) * * /.
0..
'
( ( ((
(
1 ((
(
*
((
*
# (
0;//0..; & +<3 ;
' 0;:
(
0;//0..; & +<3 -
(
( (
( ( (
(
0;: ((
( & +< 3 -
( (!
'( /- :(
+
.
/.0..;
*
&
(1
(
) (
* /.: 0..
0;//0..; *
(
1
( ( *
( 00.;0..-
$ /..-0..- *
(
(
( /!.-0..-*
( $
1 (
0;//0..; '((
1 =( >
? (
0/@00 0..-'
(
4
A
( 1 )
(
( 54 (
(
1 &( 0..- '
( 7 % *
(
(
(
(
1&( 0..-
@ (
> *
( *
> ( >
( > (
( ( ( ( (
( (
( ( (
.
.!0./.
( $
:.B 0;: ((
(
( $
$ (/0
'(
( $
(
(
( ( ((
$ ( 7$
@ (
[4]
.
.!0./.
& <+++ 3 /
"
(
(
) * '
+
(
(
'(
0) * '
*
5( '
/: 0./.
)
( $ 9 "From the records I also find that the original suit was represented by the constituted attorney, namely, Shri Sukumar Biswas. Even this appeal is also filed by the constituted attorney.Iamintheopinionthatwhileasuitis being looked after by a constituted attorney, it isthedutyoftheattorneytotakepropercareof thesuitandforthenegligenceoftheattorneyif anysuitisdismissedfordefaultthenultimately the responsibility shifted to the plaintiff. So, from the facts and the reasons for delay as shown by the appellant herein, I find that it is solelypersonalproblemoftheplaintiff,notthe problem of the constituted attorney.
Moreover, from the impugned order I find that learned court below was not satisfied about the calculationofthedelayandalsodidnotfindany material on record to believe the explanation put forward by the appellant to condone the delay. It is the discretion of the court to condone the delay. From the impugned order I find that learned court below rightly exercised his discretionary power. I do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned order. Hence,Ifindthatthisappealisdevoidofmerit. Accordingly,theappealisdismissed.
(
(
( 5 $ 5
( 1
$
(
( 8
( (
;.
( > ( ( (
+
(
(
[6] 8
5
1 (
(
( $ (
( > ( ( *
( ( 5 $
( ( [7] 7$ $ >( $
( (
(1( (
# (6$
( 1 > ( ( (
(
( (
( (
$
(
> (
*
> $
( ( ((
(
(
'(( 7
( JUDGE