Disposed

Lalita Agarwal and Ors. v. Radha Basak

Calcutta HC19 Nov 2024CO/981/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Revisional challenge to refusal of a second local-commission application in a suit pending since 1998. As construction/repair of the disputed rooms was admitted complete and habitable by the opposite party, further commission was held unnecessary; revision disposed with directions to expedite trial.

What did the court decide?

Revisional application disposed; no interference with trial court order; suit to be decided within three months; parties directed to participate.

Lalita Agarwal and Ors. Vs Radha Basak — Property and Title | Calcutta HC (2024)

¶1

48 19.11.2024 Ct. No.22 pg.

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CIVIL REVISIONAL JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE

¶3

CO 981 of 2022

¶4

Smt. Lalita Agarwal & Ors. Vs.

¶5

Smt. Radha Basak

¶6

Mr. Anuj Singh Mr. Sourajit Dasgupta … For the petitioners

¶7

Mr. Tarak Nath Halder … For the opposite party

¶8

This revisional application has been filed assailing the order dated 17^th March, 2022 passed in connection with Title Suit No.364 of 1998 by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), 2^nd Court, Sealdah, wherein the learned Judge refused the prayer for holding commission under Order XXXIX Rule 7 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (in short, CPC), subject to payment of cost of Rs.1,000/-.

¶9

In disposing the application under Order XXXIX Rule 7 of the CPC filed by the defendants/petitioners herein, the learned Judge observed that previously one commission was held under Order XXXIX Rule 7 of the CPC at the instance of the plaintiff/opposite party herein and report was filed on 20^th August, 2009 and the suit was almost ready for argument. But, at that stage, one application under Order XXXIX Rule 7 of the CPC was filed

¶10

¶11

at the instance of the defendants/petitioners herein with a view to ascertain the habitable condition of room nos.4, 5, 6 along with washroom which were under construction as per report of the Commissioner filed on 20^th August, 2009.

¶12

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that at the time of commission work, it appears from the Commissioner’s report that room nos.4, 5, 6 along with washroom were under construction having no electric wiring.

¶13

At this stage, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party admitted that the construction/repair work of room nos.4, 5, 6 along with the washroom have already been completed and all those rooms are now habitable.

¶14

In the aforesaid view of the matter, I am of the humble opinion that further commission to ascertain the habitable condition of the room nos.4, 5, 6 along with the washroom is not at all required.

¶15

From that point of view, I cannot interfere with the order passed by the learned Trial Judge on 17^th March, 2022.

¶16

Therefore, dispute regarding habitable condition of the room nos.4, 5, 6 along with the washroom is now admitted fact of the suit.

¶17

With the aforesaid observation, the revisional application, being CO 981 of 2022, stands disposed of.

¶18

¶19

The learned Trial Judge is requested to dispose of the suit, which is pending since 1998, within three months from the date of communication of this order.

¶20

Parties to this revisional application are directed to participate in the proceedings so that the order of this Court is complied with.

¶21

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties are at liberty to bring this order to the notice of the learned Trial Court forthwith.

¶22

All parties shall act on the basis of a server copy of this order duly downloaded from the official website of this Court.

¶23

Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties, upon compliance of necessary formalities.

Lalita Agarwal and Ors. v. Radha Basak

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lalita Agarwal and Ors. v. Radha Basak

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Case details

Similar cases

Swapan Kumar Dey Vs Krishanu Bhattacharya

Sukesh Pradhan Vs Sujit Jana & Ors.

Krishanu Bhattacharya Vs Swapan Kumar Dey

Sri Prabhat Kumar Mitra Vs Smt. Purnima Ghosh and Anr.

Abhijit Barik and Anr. Vs Chandan Kr.Maity and Ors.

Jakir Laskar Vs Abdul Kader Sardar and Ors.