Kishanlal Paul v. Sukriti Paul And ORS

as 15.09.2021 C.O. 1609 of 2021 Kishanlal Paul Vs.

Sukriti Paul & Ors.

Mr. Mahammad Mahmud.

...for the Petitioner.

The Court is approached under Article 227 of the Constitution of India soliciting a direction to ensure expeditious disposal of suit praying for declaration, partition, permanent mandatory injunction, which was instituted in the year 2017. Adverting to the order dated 18th March, 2020 passed in T.S.No.173 of 2017 of the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), 2nd Court, Hooghly, learned Advocate for the petitioner submits that the copy of the counter claim against the written statement has not been supplied to the petitioner. It is brought to the attention of the Court that adinterim order granted in this case has already been ex tended. Learned Advocate for the petitioner contends that unless a direction is recorded as regards expeditious disposal of the pending suit, the suit may not be proceeded further to the desirable extent.

In view of the nature of the order proposed

to be made in this case and the point requires to be addressed, service of notice upon the opposite parties is not necessary.

Accordingly, service upon the opposite parties stands dispensed with.

Learned Court below is directed to dispose of the suit as expeditiously as possible after disposing of the pending interlocutory applications, if there be any, providing sufficient opportunity of hearing to either of the parties, but without granting unnecessary adjournment, unless it is extremely unavoidable.

Petitioner is directed to communicate this order to the learned Court below as well as to the opposite parties and their learned Advocate appearing in the court below.

With this observation and direction, the revisional application stands disposed of.

Urgent xerox certified copy of this order be given to the parties on usual undertaking.

(Subhasis Dasgupta, J.)