Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
1709/2013 on 10 January, 2014
Author: Asim Kumar Ray
Bench: Asim Kumar Ray
0-01-14 em No. 77 AD C.O. 1709 of 2013 In re : Amit Maity. ... Petitioner Mr. Sauvik Nandy, Mr. Ujjawl Kanti Jana.
... for the petitioner.
This revisional application is directed against the order dated 18th January, 2013 passed in Title Suit No. 137 of 2012 by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), 1st Court, Alipore, thereby rejected the prayer of the petitioner for local inspection.
Learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that his client/petitioner purchased one self contained flat being Flat No. 1 situated on the Northern Side of the first floor of the premises No. 92, Jhill Road (Bank Plot) within Plot No. 104 of Calcutta Municipal Corporation, having total super built up area of 600 sq.ft. The said flat consists of two bed rooms, one dinning cum drawing space, one toilet, one kitchen and verandah together with undivided proportionate share or interest in the land and common areas and facilities.
Learned Advocate for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner has entered into an agreement with the developer regarding car parking space appertaining to the aforesaid plot number, but the opposite party has covered the common open space for the purpose of enjoying it for parking his own vehicle. The opposite party filed an application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of C.P.C. and got an interim order ex parte. On receipt of the notice, the petitioner entered appearance and filed an application under Order 39 Rule 7 read with Section 151 of C.P.C. praying for local inspection. Learned court below has rejected the same. So, this revisional application.
I have meticulously perused the revisional application and the order impugned. I have taken specific note of the submission of the learned Advocate for the petitioner. It is seen from the record that the plaintiff/opposite party made out a case that according to sanctioned site plan there are only two car parking spaces available on the ground floor of the property in question. One of such car parking space is within owner's allocation and the owner is enjoying the same and the other car parking space has been purchased by the plaintiff/opposite party and the same has been mentioned in the Deed of Conveyance of the opposite party. Therefore, it is the case of the opposite party/plaintiff that there is no car parking space left in the ground floor of the suit property. It is his specific case that from the sanctioned plan, it will not appear that there is other 2 alternative car parking space left in the ground floor. It is alleged that the petitioner/defendant was parking his car in the common passage.
Be that as it may. The matter is before the lower court for setting the dispute at rest. It is very difficult to have an idea that if there is no such other car parking space left in the suit premises then how the petitioner/defendant entered into an agreement for purchasing a separate car parking space.
The petitioner/defendant may take all the points which he has taken in the revisional application before the lower court and agitate it for redress.
With this observation, I find that there is no odd in the findings of the learned court below.
This revisional application stands dismissed.
Urgent xerox certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties as expeditiously as possible.
(Asim Kumar Ray, J.)