Dismissed

Debangshu Mondal v. Subham Paul

Calcutta HC10 Feb 2021CO/258/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court disposed of two civil revisions petitioning for quashing an order allowing police help in title suits. The petitioner alleged ambiguity in the lower court's order directing police to enforce injunctions on specific property plots. The single judge read the order, found no ambiguity, affirmed the direction for clear investigation, and dismissed the revisions.

What did the court decide?

The revisional applications disposed of in limine with no order as to costs; directions issued for expedited local investigation.

Debangshu Mondal Vs Subham Paul — Property and Title | Calcutta HC (2021)

¶1

S/L 13 & 15 10.02.2021 Court. No. 19 GB

¶2

C.O. 258 of 2021 With C.O. 261 of 2021

¶3

Sri Debangshu Mondal Vs. Subham Paul & Ors.

¶4

(Through Video Conference)

¶5

Ms. S. Bhattacharya Chakraborty, Mr. Rittick Chowdhury.

¶6

… for the Petitioner.

¶7

Mr. Devajyoti Barman, Ms. Sanjukta Basu Mallick.

¶8

C.O. 258 of 2021 and C.O. 261 of 2021 are taken up analogously as the subject matter of the suits and the parties are same.

¶9

These two civil revisions arise out of orders dated December 24, 2020 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), 1^st Court at Baruipur, District 24 Parganas (South) allowing an application for police help.

¶10

C.O.258 of 2021 arises out of Title Suit No.229 of 2018 and C.O. 261 of 2021 arises out of Title Suit No.230 of 2018. Debangshu Mondal is the petitioner. In C.O. 258 of 2021 he is the defendant no.7 and in C.O.261 of 2021 he is the defendant no.17.

¶11

The petitioner is aggrieved by the order of police help granted by the learned court below in the respective suits with a direction upon the I.C. Narendrapur P.S. to look into

¶12

¶13

the matter and see that the order of injunction passed on December 7, 2018 was maintained properly. The ad interim orders were passed in the respective suits directing some of the defendants to maintain status quo in respect of possession, nature and character of the suit property. Alleging violation of the order of status quo, the plaintiffs filed an application for police help. The said application was disposed of with a direction upon the police to file a report upon considering the situation. The report was filed by the police to the extent that a G+4 building was completed and an another floor was being constructed. Thereafter, another application for police help was filed and the defendants, who were directed to maintain status quo with regard to the nature, character and possession of the suit property, had filed an undertaking before the learned court below that no construction would be carried out on the suit properties, namely, Dag Nos.230, 231 and 232 in Mouza – Balia, P.S. Sonarpur, District 24 Parganas (South).

¶14

According to Ms. Chakraborty, the order of police help was not clear and it appears that the police have been directed to see that the order of injunction was implemented in respect of the entire project undertaken by the concerned defendants for development of the property. According to her, there has been no construction on Dag Nos. 230, 231 and 232, which are the suit property in the respective suits. Subsequent to the order of ad interim injunction passed by the learned court below, it is further emphasized that the

¶15

¶16

construction was going on in other portions of the project, which do not form a part of the suit property.

¶17

Mr. Barman, learned advocate for the plaintiff/opposite party submits that the project has been going on over the entire area including the suit property. That under the garb of constructing on the areas which were not covered by the suit, the developers were actually constructing on the suit properties. An application for local investigation for demarcation was already pending before the learned court below and once there was an order of status quo, it was the duty of the Court to ensure that the said order was not violated. Hence, the order for police help was rightly passed. Mr. Barman further submits that the Dag numbers in question form a part of the one holding, being holding no.453.

¶18

Form the order impugned it appears that the learned court below directed the police to see that the interim order of injunction passed on December 7, 2018 was implemented and the undertaking given was respected. I do not find there is any ambiguity at all. When the original ad interim order of injunction has been restricted to Dag Nos.230, 231 and 232 of the concerned mouza, the police will ensure that no construction on any portion of the said Dag numbers 230, 231 and 232 shall be made. The police may require the parties to identify the said portions if the need arises. The police shall also compare the same with the undertaking given by the petitioner and also compare the same with the

¶19

¶20

documents, which may be supplied. In any event, the identity of the plots is required to be demarcated in view of the fact situation by a local investigation. The pending application shall be decided expeditiously preferably within a month from the date of communication of this order upon giving an opportunity of hearing to all the parties. The learned court below shall act in accordance with law and on the basis of the report to be submitted by the police and the parties are at liberty to approach the learned court below for appropriate orders thereafter.

¶21

The revisional applications are disposed of.

¶22

There will be, however, no order as to costs.

¶23

Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties on priority basis.

¶24

(Shampa Sarkar, J.)

Debangshu Mondal v. Subham Paul

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Debangshu Mondal v. Subham Paul

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sahajan Molla and Ors. Vs Sk Salauddin and Ors.

Ataur Rahaman Vs Md. Shahnawaz Alam

Arun Kumar Kar Prop of M/S. Arunoday Impex and Anr. Vs the Authorized Officer, Uco Bank,Zonal Office, Kol and Anr.

India Oil Corporation Ltd. and Anr. Vs Sutanu Hazra

Debangshu Mondal Vs Subham Paul and Ors.

Ummat Ali Vs Md. Samsuddin(Deceased) Reptd by Legal Heirs Md. Aatif & Ors.