SHYAMLA BARMAN AND ORS PRAGYADIP ROY BASUNIA vs SUDHIR BARMAN AND ORS — SA /3/2025
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Act ,1908 Section NA. Disposed: Contested--DISMISSED on 23rd March 2026.
CNR: WBCHCJ0042452025
Next Hearing
01st September 2025
Filing Number
SAT /18/2025
Filing Date
20-08-2025
Registration No
SA /3/2025
Registration Date
20-08-2025
Judge
HON'BLE JUSTICE DEBANGSU BASAK
Coram
HON'BLE JUSTICE DEBANGSU BASAK
Bench Type
Division Bench
Category
GROUP B (CIVIL MATTERS) ( 2 )
Sub-Category
Miscellaneous ( 57 )
Judicial Branch
SECOND APPEAL (SA) SECTION
Decision Date
23rd March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--DISMISSED
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
SHYAMLA BARMAN AND ORS PRAGYADIP ROY BASUNIA
Respondent(s)
SUDHIR BARMAN AND ORS
Hearing History
Judge: HON'BLE JUSTICE DEBANGSU BASAK
FOR ADMISSION
HEARING ( CIVIL )
HEARING ( CIVIL )
HEARING ( CIVIL )
HEARING ( CIVIL )
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 01-09-2025 | FOR ADMISSION | |
| 25-02-2026 | HEARING ( CIVIL ) | |
| 19-02-2026 | HEARING ( CIVIL ) | |
| 18-02-2026 | HEARING ( CIVIL ) | |
| 13-01-2026 | HEARING ( CIVIL ) |
Orders
Summary: The High Court of Calcutta dismissed the appellants' appeal, affirming the First Appeal Court's reversal of the trial court's decree. The court held that the non-joinder of Naresh Chandra Barman (a co-owner of the 11.44-acre property) was fatal to the suit, as the plaintiffs failed to join all co-owners despite claiming ownership of only 2.88 acres without clearly describing which portion they occupied in the property schedule. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary: The High Court of Calcutta dismissed the appellants' appeal, affirming the First Appeal Court's reversal of the trial court's decree. The court held that the non-joinder of Naresh Chandra Barman (a co-owner of the 11.44-acre property) was fatal to the suit, as the plaintiffs failed to join all co-owners despite claiming ownership of only 2.88 acres without clearly describing which portion they occupied in the property schedule. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts