Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Gouri Shankar Arya vs Babu Lal Arya And Others on 8 April, 2019
1 S/l.
16. Bpg.
April 8, 2019 In the High Court at Calcutta Civil Revisional Jurisdiction C.O. No.1286 of 2019 Gouri Shankar Arya Versus Babu Lal Arya and others.
Mr. Srijit Chakraborty, Mr. A. Das.
...for the petitioner.
Mr. Tarique Quasimuddin, Ms. Sanchita Chaudhuri, Mr. Kuldip Mallick.
...for the opposite parties.
The defendant in an eviction suit on the grounds of addition, alteration and violation of the clauses (m),(o) and (p) of Section 108 of the Transfer of Property Act, has preferred the instant revisional application. By the impugned order, the application of the plaintiffs under Order 26 Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure was allowed on two points, to draw a sketch map of the present 2 accommodation and to state the details of deviation, if any, from the sanctioned building plan.
Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that previously a commission was held under Order XXXIX Rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure for the purpose of noting the location and situation of the suit premises, to note down the extent of accommodation available to the suit premises with the measurements and to draw a sketch map. It is argued that since the previous commissioner already filed a report, which is on record, the present application, which was allowed by the trial court, was an unnecessary repetition designed to fish out evidence.
Such contentions are controverted on behalf of the plaintiffs/opposite parties.
It is seen from the impugned order that the trial court allowed local investigation only to ascertain the details of deviation, if any, from the sanctioned building plan and to draw up a sketch map of the present accommodation. Although learned counsel for the petitioner might have been somewhat justified in arguing that the drawing of a sketch map was already allowed by the previous order of local inspection and formed a part of the earlier report, such sketch map might also have relevance to the other point of investigation in the current application, being to elucidate the details of deviation, if any, from the sanctioned building plan. As such, the 3 trial court did not commit any jurisdictional error in permitting such local investigation on the limited points as indicated above.
Accordingly, C.O. No.1286 of 2019 is dismissed on contest without any order as to costs.
Urgent certified website copies of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties upon compliance of all requisite formalities.
(Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J. )