Dhirendra Subba and Ors. Vs the Block Development… — Writ and Judicial Review | Calcutta HC (2025)

Dhirendra Subba and Ors. Vs the Block Development… — Writ and Judicial Review | Calcutta HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

C.O. 150 of 2025 and the connected application CAN 1 of 2025 disposed of without interfering with the impugned order dated July 24, 2025; petitioners left at liberty to approach the Appeal Court in seisin of Title Appeal No. 1 of 2025 for appropriate relief; Appeal Court requested to dispose of the appeal expeditiously without unnecessary adjournments.

Issue for consideration

Whether the impugned order dated July 24, 2025 passed in Title Appeal No. 1 of 2025, declining the injunction applied for by the petitioners, suffers from material irregularity warranting interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

Court's answer

Since the suit stands dismissed and is yet to be restored, it would not be prudent to grant an order of injunction at this stage, particularly when the petitioner was not enjoying any interim order during the pendency of the suit.

Ratio / Principle

The Court found no material irregularity in the order dated July 24, 2025 warranting interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

Key takeaways

In the event the occasion so arises, it would be open to the petitioners as petitioners/plaintiffs to approach the Court in seisin of Title Appeal No. 1 of 2025 for appropriate relief.obiter¶21
Since title to the suit is involved, the Title Appeal should be heard and disposed of as expeditiously as possible, without granting unnecessary adjournments to any of the parties.ratio¶23

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Revisional application (C.O. 150 of 2025, with CAN 1 of 2025) under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against Order No. 6 dated July 24, 2025 passed in Title Appeal No. 1 of 2025, whereby the learned Appeal Court declined to grant the injunction applied for by the petitioners. Background: in a suit for declaration and injunction, an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 was allowed by the learned Trial Judge on February 5, 2025, dismissing the suit; the petitioners challenged that order in Title Appeal No. 1 of 2025 and sought interim injunction therein. Held: since the suit stands dismissed and is yet to be restored, and the petitioners were not enjoying any interim order during the pendency of the suit, it would not be prudent to grant an order of injunction at this stage; no material irregularity was found in the impugned order warranting interference under Article 227. The petitioners were left at liberty to approach the Appeal Court in seisin of the title appeal for appropriate relief, and the Appeal Court was requested to hear and dispose of the appeal expeditiously without unnecessary adjournments, title to the suit being involved. Both matters were disposed of. (Debangsu Basak, J.)

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CIRCUIT BENCH AT JALPAIGURI CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE

Present:

The Hon’ble Justice Debangsu Basak

C.O. 150 of 2025

Sri Dhirendra Subba & Ors. Vs.

The Block Development Officer, Mirik & Ors. With CAN 1 of 2025

For the Petitioners : Mr. Sandip Mondal Mr. Amit Saha For the State : Mr. Hirak Barman Mr. Nabankur Paul

Heard & Judgment on : November 19, 2025

Debangsu Basak, J.:-

Revisonal application is directed against Order No. 6 dated July 24, 2025 passed in Title Appeal No. 1 of 2025.

In a suit for declaration and injunction, the opposite party filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908.

The application under Order 7, Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908

was allowed by the learned Trial Judge on February 5, 2025.

2

Aggrieved by the order dated February 5, 2025, the petitioners filed Title Appeal No. 1 of 2025.

In Title Appeal No. 1 of 2025, petitioners applied for an order of injunction.

By the impugned order, learned Appeal Court was pleased not to grant any order of injunction as prayed for. Aggrieved thereby, the revision application is filed.

Learned advocate for the petitioners submits in response to a query of the Court as to whether the petitioners/plaintiffs were enjoying any order of injunction subsequent to the filing of the suit on June 24, 2025 till its dismissal on February 5, 2025. Learned advocate appearing for the petitioners in his usual fairness submits that although an injunction petition was pending, the same was not disposed of. However, the petitioners were not enjoying any order of injunction in the suit till its dismissal.

Since the suit stands dismissed and is yet to be restored, it would not be prudent to grant an order of injunction at this stage, particularly when the petitioner was not enjoying any interim order during the pendency of the suit.

3

However, in the event, the occasion so arises, it would be open to the petitioners as the petitioners/plaintiffs to approach the Court in seisin to Title Appeal No. 1 of 2025 for appropriate relief.

I find no material irregularity in the order dated July 24, 2025 warranting interference under Article227 of the Constitution of India.

Since a title to the suit is involved, it is imperative that the Title Appeal is decided as expeditiously as possible. Learned Appeal Court is, therefore, requested to hear and dispose of the appeal as expeditiously as possible without granting any unnecessary adjournments to any of the parties.

C.O. 150 of 2025 and the connected application being CAN 1 of 2025 are

disposed of.

(Debangsu Basak, J.)

S.D.