Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Shyamal Roy vs Probodh Konar & Anr on 28 April, 2016
1 28/04/2016
ARDR C.O. 2115 of 2015 Shyamal Roy Vs. Probodh Konar & Anr.
Mr. Uttiya Roy ... for the petitioner.
Ms. Ujjaini Chatterjee, Mr. Kaushik Chowdhury, ...for the O. P. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner the learned Court below has misdirected himself while he has considered that there is nothing on record to show that the plaintiff used to supply water to the defendant, which has been disconnected later.
On perusal of the impugned order I find that there was no sign or indication even that formerly water supply was there in the suit premises at the instance of the landlord. Since that was not shown before the Court below, I am of the view that the learned Court below quite rightly rejected his such application.
It is true that without the local inspection commission, it is not possible to ascertain whether water supply was there or not. No such application was filed by either of the parties.
Therefore, there is no ambiguity in the order impugned itself. Accordingly, the revisional application stands dismissed. The learned Court below is directed to proceed with the case. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties.
(Siddhartha Chattopadhyay, J.)