Disposed¶22

Bandana Pal and Ors. v. Barun Chakraborty and Anr.

Calcutta HC10 Apr 2025CO/1630/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Order impugned set aside; learned Trial Judge directed to appoint a fresh Survey Pass Investigation Commissioner (other than the erstwhile one), whose costs of Rs. 20,000/- are to be borne by the plaintiffs; Trial Judge requested to ensure expeditious completion of the Commissioner's work in view of the matured stage of the suit. ¶22

Bandana Pal and Ors. Vs Barun Chakraborty and Anr. — Writ and Judicial Review | Calcutta HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶22

Issue for consideration

Whether the learned Trial Judge's refusal to accept the Commissioner's freshly prepared investigation report, without directing reinvestigation, calls for interference so that the investigation of the suit property is carried out by another Survey Pass Investigation Commissioner.

¶19

Court's answer

The Court felt the necessity of appointment of a Survey Pass Investigation Commissioner, and that necessity cannot be given go-bye for the fault of the Commissioner.

¶19

Ratio / Principle

Since the reports of the Commissioner have repeatedly turned out to be faulty, the investigative exercise must be carried out by another Commissioner.

¶19

Key takeaways

To facilitate the fresh investigation, the order impugned is set aside.ratio¶20
The learned Trial Judge is directed to appoint a Survey Pass Investigation Commissioner other than the erstwhile appointed Commissioner, whose costs are to be borne by the plaintiffs.ratio¶20

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Calcutta High Court, Civil Revisional Jurisdiction — C.O. 1630 of 2024, decided 10.04.2025 (Biswajit Basu, J.). The petitioners, plaintiffs in a suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession (Title Suit No. 27 of 2015, Additional Court of the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Hooghly), challenged under Article 227 of the Constitution of India the order dated April 23, 2024 whereby the learned Trial Judge refused to accept the Commissioner's freshly conducted investigation report without directing reinvestigation. The Court held that the felt necessity of a Survey Pass Investigation Commissioner cannot be given go-bye for the fault of the Commissioner; the reports having repeatedly turned out faulty, the exercise must be carried out by another Commissioner. Accordingly, the order impugned was set aside; the Trial Judge was directed to appoint a Survey Pass Investigation Commissioner other than the erstwhile one, with the costs of the new Commissioner assessed at Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand) to be borne by the plaintiffs; and, given the matured stage of the suit, the Trial Judge was requested to ensure expeditious completion of the Commissioner's work. C.O. disposed of on these terms.

¶1

10.04.2025 Item No.12, DL Court No.17 AJ.

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CIVIL REVISIONAL JURISDICTION

¶3

C.O. 1630 of 2024

¶4

Smt. Bandana Pal & Ors.

¶5

-Vs-

¶6

Sri Barun Chakraborty & Anr.

¶7

Mr. Animesh Paul.

¶8

….for the petitioners.

¶9

Mr. Gopal Chandra Ghosh, Ld. Sr. Adv., Mr. P.K. Banerjee.

¶10

…for the opposite parties.

¶11

The matter has been brought to the list for extension of interim order but by the consent of the parties, it is taken up for final disposal.

¶12

The plaintiffs in a suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession are the petitioners of the instant application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India which is directed against the order dated April 23, 2024 passed by the Additional Court of the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Hooghly in the said suit being Title Suit No. 27 of 2015 .

¶13

The learned Trial Judge had allowed the prayer of the plaintiffs for appointment of a Survey Pass Commissioner to investigate the suit property on the points mentioned in the application for such appointment.

¶14

The learned Trial Judge, by the order no. 243 dated January 10, 2020, had refused to accept the Commissioner’s report. The plaintiffs had assailed the said order in a revisional application being C.O. 659 of 2021 .

¶15

A co-ordinate Bench of this Court, by the order dated February 28, 2023, had disposed of the said revisional application by directing the learned Trial Judge to re-appoint the self-same Commissioner to hold the investigation afresh.

¶16

Pursuant to the said direction, a fresh investigation was conducted by the said Commissioner

¶17

¶18

but once again, his report was found to be faulty. The learned Trial Judge, by the order impugned has refused to accept the same. The plaintiffs are aggrieved by the said order as the learned Trial Judge did not direct reinvestigation.

¶19

The Court felt the necessity of appointment of a Survey Pass Investigation Commissioner; such necessity cannot be given go-bye for the fault of the Commissioner. The reports of the Commissioner have repeatedly turned out to be faulty; therefore the said exercise must be carried out by another Commissioner.

¶20

To facilitate the said drill, the order impugned is set aside. The learned Trial Judge is directed to appoint a Survey Pass Investigation Commissioner, except the erstwhile appointed Commissioner; the costs of the newly appointed Commissioner shall be borne by the plaintiffs, which is assessed @ Rs. 20,000/-(Rupees Twenty Thousand).

¶21

In view of the matured stage of the suit, the learned Trial Judge is requested to ensure completion of Commissioner’s work as expeditiously as possible.

¶22

C.O. 1630 of 2024 is disposed of with the above terms.

¶23

Parties to act on the server copy of this order duly downloaded from the official website of this Court.

¶24

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

¶25

(Biswajit Basu, J.)

Bandana Pal and Ors. v. Barun Chakraborty and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bandana Pal and Ors. v. Barun Chakraborty and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ripon Shaik and Ors. Vs the Babasaheb Ambedkar University and Ors.

Gandhari College and Ors. Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.

Aishiki Guchhait Vs the State of West Bengal and Ors.

Sourenee Leaves Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. Vs the State of West Bengal and Ors.

Vidhyawashini Trading and Development Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs Ganauri Mahato

Lakshmi Gurey and Ors. Vs Pradip Dubey Babla and Ors.