High CourtsSingle Bench

Dilip Kumar Agarwal vs Sabitri Devi Agarwal And Ors.

Calcutta High Court · Decided on 8 June 2026 · Citation: (2026) 06 CAL CK 0414

HON’BLE JUDGES
Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Code Of Civil Procedure, 1908 — Order 26 Rule 9
RESULT
Disposed Of
CASE NUMBER
Civil Order No. 67 Of 2026
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

11 paragraphs · 427 words

Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J

1.

The present application has been filed for expeditious hearing of an application filed by the petitioner under Order XXVI Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure in connection with a partition suit.

2.

Learned counsel for the Opposite Party nos. 1 and 3 submits that there was no fault on the part of the Trial Court in view of the petitioner himself having filed an application for amendment of the said application under Order XXVI Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, due to which much time was consumed in the Trial Court.

3.

Although there is directly no fault on the part of the Trial Court in delaying the matter, it is found from the records that the application has been pending for quite some time. Even taking into account that the application was subsequently amended at the behest of the plaintiff/petitioner, the said amended application was filed sometime on February 23, 2026.

4.

Accordingly, it is expected that the application shall be disposed of at the earliest by the learned Trial Judge.

5.

At this juncture, learned counsel for Opposite Party nos. 1 and 3 informs the Court that the matter is next fixed for hearing before the Trial Court on June 10, 2026.

6.

Learned counsel for the petitioner also points out that there was a previous direction by a Division Bench of this Court dated December 15, 2021 passed in FMAT No. 16 of 2022 to expeditiously dispose of the suit. However, taking into consideration the subsequent filing of the application under Order XXVI Rule 9 of the Code, the Trial Court cannot be faulted for the delay in the said disposal.

7.

Be that as it may, in view of the application being fixed for hearing day after tomorrow, CO 67 of 2026 is disposed of by requesting the learned Trial Judge to take up for hearing the pending application under Order XXVI Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure in connection with OC (Partition) Suit No.56 of 2019 on the said date. It is expected that the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) at Siliguri shall dispose of the said application within a week from taking up the same.

8.

Thereafter, the learned Trial Judge is also expected to dispose of the suit itself as expeditiously as possible, preferably within eight months from date.

9.

There will be no order as to costs.

10.

Urgent photostat certified copies of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance of all requisite formalities.