AJOY KUMAR ROY PRAGYADIP ROY BASUNIA vs GOURANGA CHANDRA ROY — CO/70/2026

Case under Code of Civil Procedure Act ,1908 Section NA. Disposed: Contested--DISMISSED on 10th June 2026.

Case disposed Next hearing 10-Jun-2026

CNR: WBCHCJ0020692026

Filing Number

CO/71/2026

Filing Date

21-May-2026

Registration No

CO/70/2026

Registration Date

22-May-2026

Judge

Hon'ble Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya

Coram

Hon'ble Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya

Bench Type

Single Bench

Category

GROUP B (CIVIL MATTERS) ( 2 )

Sub-Category

Ex parte Decree/Order ( 22 )

Judicial Branch

RULE SECTION

Decision Date

10-Jun-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--DISMISSED

Last updated 11-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Code of Civil Procedure Act ,1908 Section NA

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.AJOY KUMAR ROY PRAGYADIP ROY BASUNIA

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.GOURANGA CHANDRA ROY

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 10-Jun-2026

    Hon'ble Justice Sabyasachi BhattacharyyaView PDF

  3. 10-Jun-2026

    Hon'ble Justice Sabyasachi BhattacharyyaView PDF

    The Calcutta High Court dismissed the revisional petition challenging the trial judge's refusal to grant stay of a 2013 preemption order under the West Bengal Land Reforms Act. Though the petitioner argued the preemption order was legally defective, the court held that premature stay could not be granted before the condonation application and Order IX Rule 13 application were decided. The court clarified the petitioner could renew the stay prayer after the condonation application is disposed of. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  4. 10-Jun-2026

    CIVIL Motion

    Hon'ble Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya

  5. 21-May-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. CO/70/2026

casestatus.in Summary

The Calcutta High Court dismissed the revisional petition challenging the trial judge's refusal to grant stay of a 2013 preemption order under the West Bengal Land Reforms Act. Though the petitioner argued the preemption order was legally defective, the court held that premature stay could not be granted before the condonation application and Order IX Rule 13 application were decided. The court clarified the petitioner could renew the stay prayer after the condonation application is disposed of. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case