JHUMA BHATTACHARYYA CHIRANJIB SINHA vs ABHIJIT BHATTACHARYA AND ANR — CO/82/2026

Case under Specific Relief Act ,1963 Section NA. Disposed: Contested--DISPOSED on 12th June 2026.

CNR: WBCHCA0010552026

CASE DISPOSED

Next Hearing

19th January 2026

Filing Number

CO/79/2026

Filing Date

08-01-2026

Registration No

CO/82/2026

Registration Date

08-01-2026

Judge

HON'BLE JUSTICE OM NARAYAN RAI

Coram

HON'BLE JUSTICE OM NARAYAN RAI

Bench Type

Single Bench

Category

GROUP B (CIVIL MATTERS) ( 2 )

Sub-Category

Miscellaneous ( 57 )

Judicial Branch

RULE SECTION

Decision Date

12th June 2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--DISPOSED

Acts & Sections

Specific Relief Act ,1963 Section NA

Petitioner(s)

JHUMA BHATTACHARYYA CHIRANJIB SINHA

Respondent(s)

ABHIJIT BHATTACHARYA AND ANR

Hearing History

Judge: HON'BLE JUSTICE OM NARAYAN RAI

19-01-2026

NEW MOTION

12-06-2026

UPGRADED MOTION

11-06-2026

UPGRADED MOTION

19-05-2026

MOTION

18-05-2026

MOTION

Orders

12-06-2026
HON'BLE JUSTICE OM NARAYAN RAI

Case Summary: CO/82/2026 The court dismissed Jhuma Bhattacharyya's revisional petition challenging the trial court's rejection of her amendment application. The petitioner sought to add a counter-claim for her share in properties (11 and 11A Ruby Park) during the evidence stage of a partition suit. The court upheld the rejection, finding the petitioner lacked due diligence in filing the amendment after trial commenced, especially since the factual basis was within her knowledge. Critically, a prior partition suit (Title Suit 153/2015) concerning the same properties was already pending before the same court, making the counter-claim unnecessary. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: CO/82/2026 The court dismissed Jhuma Bhattacharyya's revisional petition challenging the trial court's rejection of her amendment application. The petitioner sought to add a counter-claim for her share in properties (11 and 11A Ruby Park) during the evidence stage of a partition suit. The court upheld the rejection, finding the petitioner lacked due diligence in filing the amendment after trial commenced, especially since the factual basis was within her knowledge. Critically, a prior partition suit (Title Suit 153/2015) concerning the same properties was already pending before the same court, making the counter-claim unnecessary. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Browse Related Cases

Cases under same legislation

Explore other courts

Search Another Case