SMITA ROY Vs. SIMA ROY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. B. Haldar, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners. Mr. O. Laskar, the learned counsel appears on behalf of the respondent No. 1.

(2.) This is an application filed by invoking the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court challenging the order dtd. 31/5/2023 passed by the learned Court of the Munsiff No. 1, Karimganj (hereinafter referred to as, "the learned Trial Court") in Title Suit No. 35/2013 whereby the application under Sec. 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (for short, "the Act of 1963") for condonation of delay of 2334 days in filing the application for setting aside the abatement was dismissed.

(3.) For appreciating the dispute involved in the instant proceedings, it is pertinent to take note of that one Panna Lal Roy who is the father of the petitioners had filed a suit being Title Suit No. 35/2013 before the learned Trial Court seeking declaration that he is the land holder of the suit land described in Third Schedule to the plaint and owner of the building/suit rooms described in Fourth Schedule to the plaint; for confirmation of plaintiff's possession over the suit land; for declaration that the registered document No. 1487 dtd. 12/3/2004 of Karimganj Sub-Registry and the registered document No. 4807 dtd. 18/9/2004 of Karimganj Sub-Registry are illegal, malafide, collusive, without consideration, void and void-ab-initio as well as for declaration that the principal defendant No. 1 has not acquired any right, title, interest or possession in the suit land and in the suit building/suit rooms on the strength of the suit documents as well as for permanent injunction.