Dismissed¶27

Haripada Maiti v. Pankaj Kumar Maity and Ors.

Calcutta HC17 Jun 2025RVW/131/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Review application R.V.W. 131 of 2022 in MAT 884 of 2022 (Haripada Maiti v. Pankaj Ranjan Maity & Ors.) DISMISSED; no error apparent on the face of the order dated June 17, 2022 remanding WPA 6879 of 2022 to the learned Single Judge for disposal after exchange of affidavits; no ground for review within the scope of Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure; underlying dispute concerned water supply connection by Tamralipta Municipality through a common passage, police deputation by Officer in charge, Tamluk Police Station, and restraint on co-owner private respondents; parties at liberty to mention before the learned Single Judge for hearing.

What did the court decide?

The parties are at liberty to mention the matter before the learned Single Judge having determination for hearing of the writ petition. ¶27

Haripada Maiti Vs Pankaj Kumar Maity and Ors. — Calcutta HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

The parties are at liberty to mention the matter before the learned Single Judge having determination for hearing of the writ petition.

¶27

Issue for consideration

Whether there is any error apparent on the face of the order dated June 17, 2022 (disposing of MAT 884 of 2022) so as to constitute a ground for review within the scope of Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

¶23

Court's answer

No error apparent on the face of the order under review; no ground for review within the scope of Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been made out.

¶23

Ratio / Principle

The review application being RVW 131 of 2022 stands dismissed.

¶27

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Review dismissed. R.V.W. 131 of 2022 in MAT 884 of 2022 (Haripada Maiti v. Pankaj Ranjan Maity & Ors.) sought review of the bench's own order dated June 17, 2022, which had disposed of the appeal against the learned Single Judge's order dated June 7, 2022 in WPA 6879 of 2022. The Single Judge's order had directed Tamralipta Municipality to give the writ petitioner a water supply connection through the same common passage serving the co-owner private respondents within two weeks, with the Officer in charge, Tamluk Police Station to depute a competent person to prevent breach of peace, and had restrained the co-owners from interference. On the appeal the bench had set aside that order and remanded the matter to the learned Single Judge for determination after exchange of affidavits, considering there might be serious factual disputes and that the writ petition ought to have been disposed of upon exchange of affidavits. Learning that the affidavits had since been exchanged and the writ petition was ready for hearing, the bench found no error apparent on the face of the order under review and no ground for review within the scope of Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The review application stands dismissed, with liberty to the parties to mention the matter before the learned Single Judge for hearing of the writ petition.

¶1

17.06.2025 Item No. 07. Court No.37. AB (ID 266330)

¶2

R.V.W. 131 of 2022

¶3

¶4

MAT 884 of 2022

¶5

Haripada Maiti Vs

¶6

Pankaj Ranjan Maity & Ors.

¶7

Mr. Dyutiman Banerjee,

¶8

Mr. Vishal Mallick, Mr. S. K. Maity …..For the Petitioner.

¶9

Mr. Sabyasachi Mondal,

¶10

Ms. Payel Khanra ……For the Respondents/ Appellants.

¶11

Mr. Gausul Alam, Mr. Atarul Hoque Molla….For the Respondents.

¶12

Dictated by Arijit Banerjee, J.

¶13

This review application is directed against an order dated June 17, 2022, whereby MAT 884 of 2022 was disposed of by us along with CAN 1 of 2022.

¶14

The appeal was directed against an order dated June 7, 2022, whereby a learned Single Judge disposed of WPA 6879 of 2022. The operative portion of the order impugned in the appeal reads as follows:

¶15

“Accordingly, the Tamralipta Municipality is directed to take immediate steps for giving the water supply connection to the premises of the petitioner through the same common passage from where water supply has been effected to the private respondents i.e. the coowners of the said premises. Steps shall be taken in the matter by the Municipality positively within a

¶16

¶17

period of two weeks from the date of communication of this order.

¶18

The date of installing the pipeline shall be intimated in advance to the parties.

¶19

The Officer in charge, Tamluk Police Station is directed to depute a competent person at the site on the date of effecting the water supply connection to ensure that there is no breach of peace in the locale.

¶20

The private respondents i.e. the co-owners are restrained from creating any sort of disturbance or interference at the time of effecting the water supply connection in the premises of the petitioner in the manner as indicated hereinabove.”

¶21

Having heard learned Counsel for the parties, we were of the view that there may be serious factual disputes between the appellants and the respondent/writ petitioner. We noted that the writ petition was disposed of by the learned Judge without calling for affidavits. We were of the view that the writ petition should have been disposed of upon exchange of affidavits. Hence, we had set aside the order under appeal and remanded the matter to the learned Single Judge having determination in the matter after directing exchange of affidavits.

¶22

Learned Advocates for the parties apprise us that in terms of the order under review, the parties have exchanged affidavits before the learned Single Judge. The writ petition is ready for hearing.

¶23

We do not find any error apparent on the face of the order under review. No ground for review

¶24

¶25

within the scope of Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been made out.

¶26

Hence, we see no reason to review the order dated June 17, 2022.

¶27

The review application being RVW 131 of 2022 stands dismissed.

¶28

The parties will be at liberty to mention the matter before the learned Single Judge having determination for hearing of the writ petition.

¶29

All parties shall act in terms of server copy of the order downloaded from the official website of this Court.

¶30

(Rai Chattopadhyay, J.) (Arijit Banerjee, J.)

Haripada Maiti v. Pankaj Kumar Maity and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Haripada Maiti v. Pankaj Kumar Maity and Ors.

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

Gazi Murshidul Arefin and Ors. Vs Salt Lake Society for Hotel Management and Anr.

Srei Infrastructure Finance Limited and Anr. Vs Orissa Steel Expressway Private Limited

Dri Munisuvrata Agri International Limited Vs Sleepwell Industries Co. Ltd.

Central Bureau of Investigation Vs Sumit Kumar, Superindent of Police,Coochbehar

Jitendra Kumar Sahu Vs M/S Smc Global Securities Ltd. and Anr.

Kausick Auddy and Anr. Vs Uday Shah and Anr.