MANAB PAUL vs SHIBAJI NASKAR AND OTHERS — 99/2025

Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section O43,R1. Disposed: Uncontested--DISMISSED FOR DEFAULT on 05th March 2026.

Case disposed

TITLE APPEAL

CNR: WBSP010092842025

Filing Number

5931/2025

Filing Date

01-Jul-2025

Registration No

99/2025

Registration Date

01-Jul-2025

Court

District and Sessions Judge, Alipur, South 24 Pgs

Judge

1-District Judge

Decision Date

05-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Uncontested--DISMISSED FOR DEFAULT

Last updated 09-Mar-2026

Acts & Sections

Code of Civil Procedure Section O43,R1

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.MANAB PAUL

    Adv. PANKAJ DAS

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.SHIBAJI NASKAR AND OTHERS

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 05-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    District Judge

  3. 05-Feb-2026

    Order by CourtView PDF

    The District Judge issued an interim order in Title Appeal 99 of 2025, directing the appellant to show cause by 05.03.2026 why the appeal should not be dismissed for non-compliance with court orders, after the appellant failed to appear despite repeated calls during the hearing on the Limitation Act application. Respondents filed written objections to the appellant's Section 5 Limitation Act application, and the matter is adjourned pending the appellant's response. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  4. 05-Feb-2026

    Show Cause

    District Judge

  5. 17-Dec-2025

    Hearing of Petition

    District Judge

  6. 06-Nov-2025

    Hearing of Petition

    District Judge

  7. 01-Aug-2025

    Order by CourtView PDF

  8. 01-Aug-2025

    Sr/Ad/Appearence

    District Judge

  9. 01-Jul-2025

    Order by CourtView PDF

  10. 01-Jul-2025

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  11. 01-Jul-2025

    Case filed

    Registration No. 99/2025

casestatus.in Summary

The District Judge issued an interim order in Title Appeal 99 of 2025, directing the appellant to show cause by 05.03.2026 why the appeal should not be dismissed for non-compliance with court orders, after the appellant failed to appear despite repeated calls during the hearing on the Limitation Act application. Respondents filed written objections to the appellant's Section 5 Limitation Act application, and the matter is adjourned pending the appellant's response. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case