Swapan Manna and Anr. Vs Ruma Mukherjee and Ors. — Writ and Judicial Review | Calcutta HC (2025)

Swapan Manna and Anr. Vs Ruma Mukherjee and Ors. — Writ and Judicial Review | Calcutta HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

C.O. 463 of 2024 allowed: the impugned order no. 28 dated 20th December, 2023 is set aside and the application under Section 151 CPC for repairing of the suit premises is allowed, subject to the conditions that the petitioners shall not change the nature and character of the suit property while carrying out the repairs and shall not claim any equity in respect of the suit property by virtue of this order; no order as to costs.

Issue for consideration

Whether the suit premises require urgent repairs and whether allowing the repairs specified in the application under Section 151 CPC (paragraphs 3 and 4 and the schedule of repairing) would change the nature and character of the suit property. +1 more

Court's answer

On going through the schedule of repairing, the averments in the Section 151 CPC application and the photographs appended to the revisional application, the Court is of the considered view that the suit premises require urgent repairs.

Ratio / Principle

The repairs specifically stated in paragraphs 3 and 4 of the application and in the schedule of repairing, if allowed, would not amount to changing the nature and character of the suit property.

Key takeaways

The learned trial judge rejected the application for repairing by a totally non-speaking order; accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and the application for repairing stands allowed.ratio¶18
The petitioners shall not change the nature and character of the suit property while undertaking the repairing work.ratio¶18
It is made clear that the petitioners shall not claim any equity in respect of the suit property by virtue of this order.ratio

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Civil Order (revisional jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution) by the plaintiffs/petitioners against Order no. 28 dated 20th December, 2023 of the learned Judge, 10th Bench, City Civil Court at Calcutta in Title Suit No. 1052 of 2021, whereby their application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure praying for repairing of the suit premises was rejected. Held: (i) on a consideration of the schedule of repairing, the averments in the application and the photographs appended, the suit premises require urgent repairs; (ii) the repairs specified in paragraphs 3 and 4 and the schedule, if allowed, would not change the nature and character of the suit property; (iii) the trial judge had rejected the application by a totally non-speaking order. The impugned order was set aside and the repair application allowed, subject to the riders that the petitioners shall not change the nature and character of the suit property during the repair work and shall not claim any equity in respect of the suit property by virtue of the order. No order as to costs. (Hiranmay Bhattacharyya, J.)

A-1247 05.08.2025 Court No.6 BP

C.O. 463 of 2024

Sri Swapan Manna & Anr.

-versus-

Ruma Mukherjee & Ors.

Mr. Tanmoy Mukherjee Ms. Fatima Hasan Mr. Arindam Sadhukhan … for the petitioners

Mr. Ganesh Prasad Shaw Mr. Sayan Dev Kumar ..for the opposite parties

This application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is at the instance of the plaintiffs and is directed against an order being no. 28 dated 20^th December, 2023 passed by the learned Judge, 10^th Bench, City Civil Court at Calcutta in Title Suit No. 1052 of 2021.

By the order impugned the application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure praying for repairing of the suit premises stood rejected.

Mr. Mukherjee, learned advocate appearing for the petitioners submits that the learned trial judge rejected the application by a totally non-speaking order. He submits that the suit premises requires urgent repairs and the schedule of repairing has been specifically stated in the application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

2

The learned advocate appearing for the opposite parties submits that the petitioners are not tenants in respect of the suit property. He submits that the petitioners are the tresspassers in respect of the suit property. He submits that since the petitioners could not establish their legal right to stay in the said property the learned trial judge was right in rejecting the application for repairs.

Heard the learned advocates for the respective parties and perused the materials placed.

The petitioners filed a suit claiming their tenancy right and the opposite parties have filed a counter claim praying for eviction of the petitioners from the suit property. It is not in dispute that the petitioners are in possession of the suit property.

After going through the schedule of repairing as well as the averments made in the application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure as well as the photographs appended to this civil revisional application, this Court is of the considered view that the suit premises require urgent repairs.

Considering the nature of repairing as specifically stated in paragraphs 3 and 4 as well as the schedule of repairing, to the mind of this Court, the same if allowed, would not amount to changing the nature and character of the suit property. It further appears that the learned trial judge rejected the application for repairing by a

3

totally non speaking order. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside. The application for repairing stands allowed. However, the petitioners shall not change the nature and character of the suit property while undertaking the repairing work.

It is however made clear that the petitioners shall not claim any equity in respect of the suit property by virtue of this order.

For the reasons as aforesaid. C.O. 463 of 2024 stands allowed.

There shall be, however, no order as to costs.

Urgent certified photocopy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties expeditiously on compliance of usual legal formalities.

(Hiranmay Bhattacharyya, J.)