I also find some substance in the argument of Mr. Sen that in
the finding recorded by the Learned Judge at the time of allowing of the
application under Section 7 (2) of the WBPT Act, 1997 is nothing but a
tenttive findings and ultimately the petitioner/defendant no.3 will get
chance to adduce evidence when the full fledged trial would take place in
Ejectment suit.
12. Therefore, considering the submissions of Mr. Sen and also
considering the decision reported in 1987(1) CHN (Cal) (Supra) I have no
hesitation to hold that the present revisional application should not be
sustained in the eye of law and it should be dismissed.
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION
APPELLATE SIDE
Present: The Hon’ble Justice Samapti Chatterjee
C.O.1333 of 2015
Subir Saha
Vs
Sankarlal Mitra & Ors.
Judgment on : August 7, 2015.
Samapti Chatterjee, J.
Citation:AIR 2016(NOC)374 Cal
Print Page
the finding recorded by the Learned Judge at the time of allowing of the
application under Section 7 (2) of the WBPT Act, 1997 is nothing but a
tenttive findings and ultimately the petitioner/defendant no.3 will get
chance to adduce evidence when the full fledged trial would take place in
Ejectment suit.
12. Therefore, considering the submissions of Mr. Sen and also
considering the decision reported in 1987(1) CHN (Cal) (Supra) I have no
hesitation to hold that the present revisional application should not be
sustained in the eye of law and it should be dismissed.
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION
APPELLATE SIDE
Present: The Hon’ble Justice Samapti Chatterjee
C.O.1333 of 2015
Subir Saha
Vs
Sankarlal Mitra & Ors.
Judgment on : August 7, 2015.
Samapti Chatterjee, J.
Citation:AIR 2016(NOC)374 Cal
