Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Smt. Subhra Goswami vs Nirmal Kumar Mukherjee (Deceased) And on 3 August, 2026
Author: Supratim Bhattacharya
Bench: Supratim Bhattacharya
2025:CHC-AS:2025-DB
A-20
Ct No.16
03.08.2026
TN
RVW 48 of 2026
in
FA 392 of 2025
Smt. Subhra Goswami
Vs.
Nirmal Kumar Mukherjee (deceased) and
others
Mr. Nitai Ch. Saha,
Ms. Nisha Agarwal
....for the review applicant
Mr. Tanmoy Mukherjee,
Mr. Souvik Das,
Mr. Rudranil Das,
Mr. Abul Mullick
....for the respondent nos. 4, 7
1. The present application has been filed for review of a
judgment dated November 04, 2025 passed by this
Bench.
2. Learned counsel for the review applicant submits that
this Court, while passing the judgment under review,
erroneously observed that the suit was barred by
limitation whereas in the plaint, the cause of action
was claimed to have arisen in the year 2009, whereas
the suit was filed in the same year.
3. Secondly, the respondent no.6 died during pendency
of the appeal, despite which the appeal was decided in
the name of the said dead person.
4. Thirdly, it is argued that the impugned transaction
was vitiated by a legal bar, since it was a benami
transaction, which was not taken note of by this
Court.
2
2025:CHC-AS:2025-DB
5. Lastly, it is contended that the deed of settlement was
not properly executed, in view of there being no
signature of the executant at the place where the
witness’s signatures were depicted.
6. Learned counsel for the respondents opposes the
review application and contends that the question of
limitation was dealt with elaborately by this Court.
The learned Trial Judge, it is pointed out, had
considered an application under Section 144 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure filed by the review
applicant, where the registered deed of settlement as
well as the rectification deed were mentioned.
7. Thus, since the said application was filed in the year
2004, the suit of 2009 was rightly held to be time-
barred by the trial court.
8. Insofar as the demise of respondent no.6 is concerned,
it is submitted that the heir of the said respondent,
being the respondent no.4, was already on record in
the appeal. Moreover, since the judgment under
review was passed in favour of the respondents by
dismissing the appeal, in any event, the demise of the
respondent no.6 did not make a difference.
9. Regarding the benami plea, it is pointed out that the
same was never argued before this Court.
10. Insofar as the execution of the deed of settlement is
concerned, learned counsel points out that in
paragraph no. 13 of the judgment under review, this
Court had observed that since the deed was
admittedly a registered one, there was no question of
3
2025:CHC-AS:2025-DB
any doubt about the execution of the same, since
presumption of correctness was attached to it, which
was never rebutted by the plaintiff/appellant.
11. Learned counsel for the review applicant reiterates in
reply that in cross-examination before the Trial Court,
the appellant had categorically denied having filed any
application under Section 144 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure.
12. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
13. Insofar as the first point is concerned, since the
learned Trial Judge elaborately dealt with the question
of limitation by relying on an exhibited document,
which was an application under Section 144 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, filed by the appellant
with another, such documentary evidence prevails
over oral evidence which might have been adduced by
the appellant in the trial court.
14. Thus, the findings of the learned Trial Judge did not
require any interference to the effect that the
application under Section 144, Code of Criminal
Procedure having been filed in 2004 and the suit in
the year 2009, the same was filed beyond three years
from the knowledge of the deeds attributable to the
appellant and was palpably time-barred.
15. Even otherwise, this Court had categorically dealt with
the issue of limitation as argued by the appellant in
the judgment under review. At the time of arguments,
the appellant urged that in view of the deed being void
4
2025:CHC-AS:2025-DB
ab initio, the question of limitation did not arise,
which was turned down by this Court.
16. Thus, fresh arguments on merits cannot be
entertained at this stage.
17. Apart from that, the question of limitation was rightly
decided by the trial court, which was affirmed by this
Court, and cannot be reopened under Order XLVII of
the Code of Civil Procedure, being a mixed question of
fact and law pertaining to the merits of the matter,
and not amenable to an adjudication ex facie on the
basis of the judgment under review.
18. Insofar as the demise of the respondent no.6 is
concerned, the appellant did not point out the same at
the relevant juncture, despite such fact being
available at the said point of time.
19. More importantly, as rightly contended by the
respondents, the demise of one of the respondents, in
whose favour ultimately the judgment under review
went, could not have made a difference in the outcome
of the appeal.
20. Since the appeal of the appellant/review applicant
was dismissed, the demise of one of the respondents
does not affect the rights of the said deceased
respondent in any manner whatsoever, which accrued
by dint of the impugned decree and were affirmed by
this Court.
21. Even otherwise, since the heir and legal representative
of the respondent no.6 was already on record as
5
2025:CHC-AS:2025-DB
respondent no.4 in the appeal, in any event, there was
no abatement of the appeal.
22. We also find such argument to be rather peculiar
since, if the appellant had not taken out any steps if
substitution was required, it is the appellant’s appeal
which ought to have abated. Hence, such argument is
also counterproductive in nature.
23. Regarding benami, no argument was ever made in
that regard by the appellant during hearing of the
appeal. Thus, a new point cannot be permitted to be
reopened on merits at the review stage.
24. Insofar as the deed of settlement is concerned, this
Court has already dealt with the issues sought to be
urged by observing that the deed was admittedly a
registered one and there was a presumption of
correctness attached to it, which was never rebutted
by the plaintiff/appellant.
25. Hence, fresh arguments pertaining to perceived errors
of law or fact cannot be reopened at this stage in the
garb of review.
26. Even otherwise, the absence of signature of the
executant of a deed in the place where the witnesses’
signatures are supposed to appear does not vitiate the
validity of the document.
27. Be that as it may, we do not find any error apparent
on the face of record or the judgment under review to
call for interference under Order XLVII of the Code of
Civil Procedure.
6
2025:CHC-AS:2025-DB
28. Hence, RVW 48 of 2026 is dismissed on contest
without any order as to costs.
29. Urgent photostat certified copies of this order, if
applied for, be made available to the parties upon
compliance with the requisite formalities.
(Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J.)
(Supratim Bhattacharya, J.)
