Surajit Biswas vs Smita Mishra Biswas on 21 June, 2017

1

(14 15))
21.06.2017

(p.j.)

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
CIVIL REVISIONAL JURISDICTION

CO No. 1871 of 2017

-And-

CO No. 1872 of 2017

Surajit Biswas

-versus-

Smita Mishra Biswas

Ms. Susmita Saha Dutta
… for the petitioner

Mr. Srijib Chakraborty
Mr. Sk. Aizul … for the opposite party
Vakalatnama being Nos.
A 11624 and A 11625
dated 14.06.2017.

Since the prayer of the petitioner in these two applications is for transfer of both the

proceedings being Act VIII Case No. 114 of 2016, F. No. 8804 of 2016 and Act VIII Case No. 140

of 2016, F. No. 10438 of 2016 pending between the same parties, both these applications are

disposed of by this common order.

In the first application it is the case of the petitioner that he first filed Act VIII Case No. 114

of 2016 against the opposite party in these applications, before the learned District Judge at

Alipore, South 24 Parganas for his appointment as the guardian of the minor son and by an order

dated August 10, 2016 passed in a writ petition a learned Single Judge of this Court requested the

learned District Judge to dispose of the said application with utmost expedition, but the said

application is yet to be decided by the learned District Judge. In the second application the
2

petitioner has alleged that the learned District Judge is unnecessarily proceeding with the

application, being Act VIII Case No. 140 of 2016 filed by the opposite party wife under Section 25

of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 claiming for permanent custody and return of the minor

READ  Lalita vs The State on 12 May, 2014

child. According to the petitioner, in view of the inordinate delay in disposal of his application

being Act VIII Case No. 114 of 2016, this Court should allow his prayer for transfer of both the

proceedings pending before the learned District Judge at Alipore, South 24 Parganas to any other

competent Court.

After considering the materials on record and the argument advanced on behalf of the

learned counsel appearing for the respective parties, I dispose of both the applications by requesting

the learned District Judge at Alipore, South 24 Parganas to dispose of both the proceedings being

Act VIII Case No. 114 of 2016 and Act VIII Case No. 140 of 2016 as expeditiously as possible

preferably, within the month of December, 2017 by way of analogous hearing and without granting

any unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties.

The learned District Judge, South 24 Parganas is requested to prepone the next date of

hearing.

It is also recorded that both the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the opposite

party in these applications assured this Court that none of the parties shall seek adjournment of

hearing of the above applications before the learned District Judge at Alipore, South 24 Parganas

and they shall render all assistance to the learned District Judge to comply with the request of this

Court.

Since the opposite party was not required to file any affidavit in opposition in any of these

applications, the allegations made as against him are deemed not to have been admitted.
3

With the above directions, CO 1871 of 2017 and CO 1872 of 2017 stand disposed of.

READ  Ramesh Kumar vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 17 October, 2001

However, there shall be no order as to costs.

Certified website copies of the order, if applied for, be urgently made available to the

parties, subject to compliance with all requisite formalities.

(Ashis Kumar Chakraborty, J.)

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *