Pradip Pramanik v. Dr. Sandip Pramanik

FMA 925 of 2014 CAN 1 of 2013 (old CAN 961 of 2013) CAN 2 of 2013 (old CAN 962 of 2013) Item10-08-2022 164.

Pradip Pramanik Ct. 8

Versus

Dr. Sandip Pramanik sg The appellant is not represented nor any accommodation is prayed for on behalf of the appellant. Our previous order would show that in spite of sufficient notice, the appellant is not represented. The appellant was also not represented on the earlier occasion.

The appeal is arising out of an order dated 13th March, 2012 passed under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), 6th Court at Alipore, South 24 Parganas dismissing the suit on ground of limitation.

In the suit, the plaintiff has challenged the deed of gift alleged to have been executed in the year 2002. In the body of the plaint, it has been clearly stated that the cause of action of the suit arose on 24th January, 2002.

In view thereof, the appeal is ex-facie barred by limitation and is, accordingly, dismissed. In view of the dismissal of the appeal, all connected applications shall stand dismissed. All interim orders, if any, shall stand vacated. (Siddhartha Roy Chowdhury, J.) (Soumen Sen, J.)