Lakshmi Gurey and Ors. Vs Pradip Dubey Babla and… — Writ and Judicial Review | Calcutta HC (2025)

Lakshmi Gurey and Ors. Vs Pradip Dubey Babla and… — Writ and Judicial Review | Calcutta HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Impugned order dated March 19, 2024 set aside; learned Trial Judge requested to appoint an Advocate Commissioner for holding local inspection of the suit property at the costs of the plaintiffs and to ensure the commission work is concluded expeditiously in view of the matured stage of the suit; C.O. 1793 of 2024 disposed of without any order as to costs.

Issue for consideration

Whether the learned Trial Judge was justified in dismissing the plaintiffs' application under Order XXXIX Rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure for local inspection of the suit property on the ground that the trial of the suit has commenced. +1 more

Court's answer

To succeed on the ground of reasonable requirement, the plaintiffs are required to prove that except the suit property, they do not have any suitable alternative accommodation available.

Ratio / Principle

Local inspection is a method to ascertain the extent of the plaintiffs' present occupation of the suit property in aid of the ground of reasonable requirement; therefore the prayer for inspection should not have been denied on the ground that the trial of the suit has commenced.

Key takeaways

The impugned order refusing local inspection is not sustainable for the aforesaid reason and is set aside.ratio¶21

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Civil revisional jurisdiction (Article 227, Constitution of India) — Ejectment Suit No. 39 of 2013 — Plaintiffs' application under Order XXXIX Rule 7 CPC for local inspection of the suit property dismissed by the trial court solely on the ground that the trial had commenced — Held: to succeed on the ground of reasonable requirement the plaintiffs must prove that they have no suitable alternative accommodation except the suit property; local inspection is a method to ascertain the extent of the plaintiffs' present occupation in aid of that ground; refusal of inspection merely because trial has commenced is unsustainable — Impugned order dated March 19, 2024 set aside; Trial Judge requested to appoint an Advocate Commissioner for local inspection at the plaintiffs' costs, to be concluded expeditiously given the matured stage of the suit — Maintainability of the suit under Section 21, The West Bengal Thika Tenancy(Acquisition and Regulation) Act, 2001 read with the Division Bench direction in FMAT 1319 of 2016 was urged by the defendants but not decided in this order — C.O. 1793 of 2024 disposed of without order as to costs.

10.04.2025 (D/L-13) Ct.-17 (Susanta Samar)

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CIVIL REVISIONAL JURISDICTION

C.O. 1793 of 2024

Smt Lakshmi Gurey & Ors.

-Vs-

Pradip Dubey (Babla) & Ors. Mr. P. Das, Mr. M. Patra,

…For the Petitioners.

Mr. Sovan Mukherjee,

…. For the Opposite Party Nos. 1-5. Mr. Soumitra Bandyopadhyay, Mr. Aniruddha Sen, …. For the State.

Affidavit-of-service filed on behalf of the

petitioners be kept with the record.

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.

The plaintiffs in a suit for eviction are the petitioners of the present revisional application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India which is directed against order dated March 19, 2024 passed by the Additional Court of learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Sealdah, District 24-Parganas (South) in the said suit being Ejectment Suit no. 39 of 2013.

The plaintiffs in the said suit had filed an application under Order XXXIX Rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure for holding local inspection of the suit property. The learned Trial Judge by the order impugned has dismissed the same on the ground that the trial of the suit has commenced.

2

The learned advocate for the petitioners submits that reasonable requirement is one of the grounds for eviction in the suit, as such the plaintiffs are under the obligation to prove that their present accommodation in the suit property is not sufficient and to demonstrate the same, they had prayed for inspection of the suit property, the learned Trial Judge, therefore, is not justified in refusing the said prayer.

The learned advocate for the defendants, the opposite parties herein submits that the suit property is comprised in Thika tenancy as such, in view of the bar under Section 21 of The West Bengal Thika Tenancy(Acquisition and Regulation) Act, 2001, the suit is not maintainable before the Civil Court and the Honb’le Division Bench in an appeal being FMAT 1319 of 2016 had directed to decide the said issue, as such, inspection of the suit property is futile exercise.

Heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the materials on record.

To succeed on the ground of reasonable requirement, the plaintiffs are required to prove that except the suit property, they do not have any suitable alternative accommodation available. The local inspection is a method to ascertain the extent of present occupation of the plaintiffs in the suit property which is in aid of the ground of reasonable requirement, therefore, the prayer of the petitioners should not have been denied on the ground that the trial of the suit has commenced.

3

The order impugned for the aforesaid reason is not sustainable and is set aside.

The learned Trial Judge is requested to appoint an Advocate commissioner for holding local inspection of the suit property at the costs of the plaintiffs. In view of the matured stage of the suit, the learned Trial Judge shall ensure that such commission work be concluded as expeditiously as possible.

C.O. 1793 of 2024 is disposed of with the above terms without any order as to costs.

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

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

(Biswajit Basu, J.)