Disposed¶14

Rabi Kumar Shaw and Anr. v. State of West Bengal and Ors.

Calcutta HC11 Nov 2024WPA/25900/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

WPA 25900 of 2024; internal repair permission; injunction peaceful possession; Title Suit No.53 of 2024 Barrackpore Civil Judge Junior Division; police report no obstruction; private respondent interference; recourse to Civil Court in seisin; writ petition disposed of; no order as to costs.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of with observations: internal repairing work requires no permission from any authority; upon excesses or interference by the private respondent, the petitioner may take out an appropriate application before the Civil Court seized of the matter, which will pass appropriate direction; no order as to costs. ¶14

Rabi Kumar Shaw and Anr. Vs State of West Bengal and Ors. — Calcutta HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶14

Issue for consideration

Whether the writ court should intervene where the private respondents and the police authorities have stopped the petitioner's repairing work of the property in his possession.

¶7

Court's answer

The police report on record does not reflect any obstruction being made at the behest of the private respondent.

¶12

Ratio / Principle

The injunction order dated 13/2/2024 passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), 2nd Court, Barrackpore in Title Suit No.53 of 2024 is in respect of peaceful possession of the plaintiff in the suit property, and nothing before the Civil Court suggests a claim for repairing of the property.

¶8

Key takeaways

For internal repairing work no permission is required from any authority.ratio¶13
If there are excesses or interference by the private respondent, the Civil Court in seisin of the matter will pass appropriate direction and the petitioner is at liberty to take out an appropriate application before that Court.ratio¶13

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ petition WPA 25900 of 2024 (Rabi Kumar Shaw & Anr. v. The State of West Bengal & Ors.), disposed of with observations by Tirthankar Ghosh, J.: (i) the injunction order dated 13/2/2024 passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), 2nd Court, Barrackpore in Title Suit No.53 of 2024 stands in respect of peaceful possession of the plaintiff in the suit property, and nothing before the Civil Court suggests any claim for repairing of the property; (ii) the police report reflects no obstruction at the behest of the private respondent; (iii) for internal repairing work of the premises no permission is required from any authority; and (iv) on any excesses or interference by the private respondent, the petitioner is at liberty to take out an appropriate application before the Civil Court seized of the matter, which will pass appropriate direction. No order as to costs.

¶1

¶2

D/L 31 11.11.2024 Rohit/Aritra ct.no.35

¶3

WPA 25900 of 2024

¶4

Rabi Kumar Shaw & Anr. Versus The State of West Bengal & Ors.

¶5

Mr. Bidhayak Lahiri, Ms. Bhaswati Lahiri, Mr. Rinku Pachhal …for the petitioner Mr. Vimal Kr. Shahi, Ld. AGP, Ms. Rupsha Chakraborty ….for the State Mr. Debasis Kar, Mr. Arka Tilak Bhadra ….for the respondent No.5 & 6 Affidavit of service filed in Court today and be

¶6

kept with the record.

¶7

Petitioner complains that the private respondents and the police authorities has stopped his repairing work. Records reflects that respondent has also filed a civil suit.

¶8

I find from order dated 13/2/2024 the terms of injunction which has been passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), 2^nd Court, Barrackpore relating to Title Suit No.53 of 2024 is in respect of peaceful possession of plaintiff in the suit property.

¶9

There is nothing before the Civil Court to suggest that the petitioner claimed for repairing of the

¶10

¶11

property. Petitioner submits that he intends to repair the internal part of the property where he is staying.

¶12

Police report does not reflect regarding any obstruction being made at the behest of the private respondent.

¶13

In view of the aforesaid if the private respondent interfere, appropriate application be taken out before the Civil Court which is in seisin of the matter. The Civil Court will pass appropriate direction needless to state for internal repairing work no permission is required from any authority but if there are excesses or interference the petitioner would be at liberty to take out an appropriate application before the Court which is in seisin of the matter.

¶14

With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition being WPA 25900 of 2024 is disposed of.

¶15

There shall be no order as to costs.

¶16

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

¶17

Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance with all requisite formalities.

¶18

(Tirthankar Ghosh, J.)

Rabi Kumar Shaw and Anr. v. State of West Bengal and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rabi Kumar Shaw and Anr. v. State of West Bengal and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Atanu Bhattacharya Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.

Gobinda Oraon and Anr. Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.

Panpati Hansda Vs the State of West Bengal and Ors.

Bulti Das Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.

Arjun Singh Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.

Pushpa Jaiswal Vs the State of West Bengal and Ors.