KHELA CHAKRABORTY Vs. KARTIK CHANDRA CHAKRABORTY
HIGH COURT TRIPURA
Kartik Chandra Chakraborty
Click here to view full judgement.
SANJAY KAROL,J. -
(1.)This Court finds no reason to allow the present application for the reason that there is no mistake or error apparent on the
face of record. Also it is not a case of discovery of a new
important matter or evidence which, after exercise of due
diligence, could not have been in the knowledge of the applicant.
Also there is no ground sufficient enough to interfere. No doubt it
is true that the present applicant was not arrayed as a party and
there are certain findings qua him in the order sought to be
reviewed against, but then, there is basis for returning such
findings and that being the acceptability of the judgment
rendered by the first appellant court, determining the rights of
the review applicant, which led to the passing of the observations
made in the order subject matter of review application.
(2.)The applicant seeks review of the judgment dated 9-12- 2014 rendered in SAO No.01 of 2011 titled as Shri Kartik Chandra Chakraborty versus Smti. Arati Chakraborty & Others
wherein it stands observed as under :
"That the plaintiff and the other eight main share holders excluding Bisweswar Chakraborty shall be entitled to 1/9th share of 43.54 acres i.e. 4.83 acres each. He shall now order the Survey Commissioner to partition the land by metes and bounds by ensuring that each of the share holders get land of equivalent value so that the total land holding in equal value terms is 4.83 acres in case of all the other main shares holders other than the plaintiff who shall get 1.28 acres of value of the land. The measurements of the land actually given may vary depending on the quality of land allotted to each share holder/group of share holders."
(3.)Significantly, such findings are based on the order/judgment passed in the appeal against which the review
applicant never preferred any appeal, nor challenged the same in
anyone of the proceedings. It also cannot be said that the review
applicant was not aware of the pendency of the second appeal for
the matter, at any given point of time, was pending before the
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.