Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Sri Subhas Chandra Jana vs Sri Gurudas Ghosh on 22 December, 2020
Author: Biswajit Basu
Bench: Biswajit Basu
(09) 22.12.2020
(p.jana) IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CIVIL REVISIONAL JURISDICTION CO No. 1738 of 2016 (Via Video Conference) Sri Subhas Chandra Jana
-versus-
Sri Gurudas Ghosh Mr. Gopal Chandra Ghosh, ... for the petitioner. Mr. Sumitro Dasgupta, Mr. Nitya Gopal Mukherjee, ... for the opposite party. Ms. Sabita Mukherjee Roy Chowdhury, ... as Special Officer.
The defendant in a suit for ejectment being Ejectment Suit No. 361 of 2014 pending before the Learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), 6th Court at Alipore is the petitioner of the present revisional application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated February 3, 2016 passed in the said suit. The Learned Trial Judge by the order impugned has dismissed an application filed by the petitioner seeking repair of the suit property on the ground that the similar application was earlier dismissed.
Mr. Gopal Chandra Ghosh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, submits that the earlier application for repair of the suit property, referred to in the order impugned was filed by the plaintiff in a suit for partition 2 between the co-sharers of the suit property and his client was not a party to such suit.
The said submission of Mr. Ghosh could not be disputed by Mr. Sumitro Dasgupta, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party.
The cause of action for filing of an application seeking repair of the suit property is required to be scrutinised on the basis of the facts and circumstances prevailing on the date of filing of such application. The dismissal of an earlier application for repair of the suit property, that too in a suit where the petitioner was not a party cannot be the ground for refusal of his similar prayer in the present suit.
The said application for repair is therefore allowed without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the plaintiff/opposite party in the suit.
Mr. Ghosh supplies a copy of the said application for repair which is taken on record. The schedule of the said application details the repair work sought for, which is quoted below:-
Schedule "1. To replace the broken bamboo and wooden frame in the Suit room.
2. To replace the broken tin in roof of the room in the suit premises.
3. To repair the broken wall/pillars in the suit rooms.
All are at Premises No. 1, Halder Para Road, P.S. Budge Budge. 24-Parganas(S)."
3The petitioner shall execute the repair works strictly in terms of the schedule of the application for repair at his own costs. The petitioner is not entitled to claim any equity in the suit for executing such repair works.
I appoint Ms. Sabita Mukherjee Roy Chowdhury, a learned advocate of this Court as a Special Officer, to oversee the execution of such repair works.
The initial remuneration for Ms. Mukherjee is fixed at Rs. 20,000/- (Rs. Twenty Thousand) only to be paid by the petitioner within seven days from date and thereafter the petitioner shall start executing the repair works after intimating the Special Officer.
Ms. Mukherjee shall communicate the date and time of her visit to the suit property to Mr. Debayan Sinha, junior to Mr. Ghosh, and Mr. Nitya Gopal Mukherjee, Junior to Mr. Dasgupta, to enable them to be present during her inspection.
The Officer-in-Charge of Budge Budge Police Station is directed to render assistance to Ms. Mukherjee, if sought for.
Let the matter come in the supplementary list on January 18, 2021 under the heading "For Order".
The parties are directed to act on the server copy. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties subject to compliance of all requisite formalities.
(Biswajit Basu, J.)