The High Court at Calcutta dismissed a Civil Revisional application challenging an order dismissing an inspection prayer in a title suit. The court held there was no reason to interfere with the Trial Judge's finding.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
02.09.2024 Item No.35 ML Ct.19 A.J.
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CIVIL REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
C.O. 2634 of 2024 Smt. Minati Jhulki –Vs–
Sri Nitai Jhulki & Ors.
Mr. Kajal Mukherjee,
Mr. Bikash Chakrtaborty.
……for the petitioner.
Mr. Gopal Chandra Ghosh, Mr. Rajkrishna Mondal, Ms. Sunandana Saha.
…….for the opposite parties.
This is an application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
The Order No.16 dated June 06, 2024 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) at Haldia, District : Purba Medinipur in connection with Title Suit No. 167 of 2023 is under challenge.
The petitioner is the plaintiff of the connected suit.
The learned Trial Judge by the order impugned has dismissed an application under Order XXXIX Rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure holding that when the picture of the suit plot and the pathway thereto are prima facie clear to the Court, there is no necessity of inspection, as prayed for.
The learned Trial Judge has come to the said finding on the basis of the materials on record; therefore this Court does not find any reason to interfere with such finding(s).
The order impugned does not call for any interference; C.O. 2634 of 2024 is dismissed without any order as to costs.
Photostat certified copies of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties subject to compliance with all requisite formalities.
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere with the Trial Judge's finding that site inspection was unnecessary when the suit plot details were prima facie clear.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Smt. Minati Jhulki
Sri Nitai Jhulki & Ors.
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
