Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Rakesh Sanghvi vs Union Of India & Ors on 21 May, 2026
21.05.2026
Ct. No.6
Sl. No.19
skg
C.O. 1630 of 2026
M/s. Manilal Sanghvi represented by
Rakesh Sanghvi
Vs.
Union of India & Ors.
Mr. Rajashree Venket Kundalia,
...for the Petitioner
Mr. Subhankar Nag,
Mr. Snehashis Sen,
Mr. Debdatta Mukhopadhyay,
...for the opposite parties
1.
This revisional application is directed an order dated
May 12, 2026 passed by the learned Chief Judge, City
Civil Court at Calcutta in Misc. Appeal no. 26 of 2026
whereby the petitioner’s application for condonation of
delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 was
posted for hearing on May 20, 2026 and the petitioner’s
application for stay was left unconsidered.
2. The petitioner claims to be a lessee in respect of two
godown spaces under the opposite party no.2
Proceedings under the Public premises, (Eviction of
Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971 were initiated by the
opposite party no.2 and ultimately the Estate Officer of
the opposite party no.2 passed an order dated April 22,
2026 directing eviction of the petitioner. Such order has
been carried in appeal being Misc. Appeal no. 26 of 2026
before the learned Chief Judge, City Civil Court at
Calcutta.
2
3. The said appeal was filed belatedly. Since the appeal
was filed belatedly and there was no explanation for the
delayed filing of the appeal, the appeal could not be
taken up by the learned Chief Judge, City Civil Court at
Calcutta.
4. An application seeking condonation of delay in
preferring the appeal was filed on May 12, 2026. The
order dated May 12, 2026 indicates that on the same
day a written objection was also filed by the opposite
party no. 2 to the said application under Section 5 of the
Limitation Act, 1963, however, the learned Chief Judge
posted the said application for hearing on May 20, 2026.
5. On the adjourned date i.e. on May 20, 2026, the
application could not be heard since the petitioner
prayed for a short passover.
6. The petitioner now contends that the petitioner’s
property has been taken possession of by the opposite
party no.2. The petitioner presses for interim order.
7. Learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner submits
that the learned Appellate Court has committed a
serious error in postponing the hearing of the
petitioner’s application for stay and allowing the
petitioner’s appeal to be merely infructuous.
8. Learned Advocate appearing for the opposite party nos.
2 to 5 submits that since there was no order of stay, the
opposite party nos. 2 to 5 have taken possession of the
3
property and, in fact, third party interest has been
created. On May 14, 2026. It is further submitted that
the material/articles of the petitioner that may have
been lying in the godown under occupation of the
petitioner are, however, safe in the hands of the opposite
party nos. 2 to 5. It is submitted that the opposite party
no.2 has already initiated a proceeding under Section 6
of the 1971 Act.
9. Having heard the learned Advocates appearing for the
respective parties and having considered the material on
record, this court is of the view that at present, when
third party rights have already been created in absence
of any order of stay, it would not be proper for this Court
to intervene and change the status quo.
10. Since the appeal along with the interlocutory
applications for stay as well as condonation of delay are
all pending before the learned Chief Judge, City Civil
Court at Calcutta, who is the statutory appellate
authority and who would have all the relevant material
on record, justice would be sub-served if liberty is
granted to the petitioner to approach the learned
Appellate Court and file an application seeking
preponement of the date of hearing of the application for
condonation of delay as well as the stay of application.
11. The parties shall be free to canvass their respective
cases before the appellate Court.
4
12. With the above observation the present revisional
application being C.O. 1630 of 2026 stands disposed of.
There shall be no order as to costs.
13. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied
for, be supplied to the parties subject to compliance with
all requisite formalities.
(Om Narayan Rai, J.)
