Dismissed¶20

Chandan Roy v. Dibakar Roy and Ors.

Calcutta HC7 Apr 2026CO/218/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

C.O. 218 of 2025; High Court at Calcutta, Circuit Bench, Jalpaiguri, Civil Revisional Jurisdiction; Chandan Roy v. Dibakar Roy & Ors.; Article 227 of the Constitution of India; Misc. Appeal No. 31 of 2025; Order No. 03 dated 23.09.2025; District Judge Jalpaiguri; Title Suit for partition and injunction; ad interim order of status quo; stay of ad interim relief rejected; no irregularity, illegality or jurisdictional error; revisional jurisdiction; application dismissed; copy of order sent down to Trial Court; advocate Druti Roy for petitioner; advocates Partha Bhoumick and Abir Biswas for opposite parties.

What did the court decide?

The decision of the First Appellate Court rejecting the petitioner's prayer for staying the ad interim relief granted by the Trial Court does not disclose any irregularity, illegality, or jurisdictional error.

Chandan Roy Vs Dibakar Roy and Ors. — Writ and Judicial Review | Calcutta HC (2026)

¶1

07.04.2026 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

¶2

Ct. No.04 CIRCUIT BENCH, JALPAIGURI Sl. No. 08 CIVIL REVISIONAL JURISDICTION

¶3

(Nandita) (APPELLATE SIDE)

¶4

C.O. 218 of 2025

¶5

Sri Chandan Roy Vs.

¶6

Sri Dibakar Roy & Ors.

¶7

Mr. Druti Roy,

¶8

… for the Petitioner

¶9

Mr. Partha Bhoumick Mr. Abir Biswas

¶10

…for the Opposite Parties

¶11

The present application has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the impugned order dated 23.09.2025 (Order No. 03) passed by the learned District Judge, Jalpaiguri in connection with Misc. Appeal No. 31 of 2025.

¶12

Heard learned Advocates appearing for the parties at length.

¶13

The factual matrix, in brief, is that the plaintiffs (opposite parties herein) instituted a Title Suit before the learned Trial Court seeking partition of the scheduled property mentioned in the plaint, along with a prayer for grant of an injunction. The said petition was contested by the present petitioner/defendant no. 3, who contended that

¶14

¶15

he is not a co-sharer of the plaintiffs in respect of the suit property, and, therefore, the suit filed by the plaintiffs is not maintainable under the law.

¶16

Upon hearing both parties, the learned Trial Court passed an ad interim order of injunction in the form of status quo with respect to the suit property. The said order of injunction was subsequently challenged before the First Appellate Court. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner/defendant no. 3 that his prayer for staying the ad interim order of status quo, as granted by the Trial Court, was rejected by the First Appellate Court.

¶17

Upon careful consideration of the submissions advanced and after perusal of the materials on record, it is evident that the First Appellate Court, after due examination of the facts and law, rejected the petitioner’s prayer for staying the ad interim relief granted by the Trial Court. The appellate court’s decision does not disclose any irregularity, illegality, or jurisdictional error.

¶18

In view of the foregoing, it is apparent that the present application filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is devoid of merit and is not sustainable in law.

¶19

¶20

Accordingly, C.O. 218 of 2025 is dismissed.

¶21

Let a copy of this order be sent down to the Trial

¶22

court immediately.

¶23

(Prasenjit Biswas, J.)

Chandan Roy v. Dibakar Roy and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chandan Roy v. Dibakar Roy and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Narayan @ Ghanashyam Mondal Vs State of West Bengal

Palas Dolui@Tanai Vs State of West Bengal

Sukh Chand Ghosh & Ors. Vs State

Soumen Das and Ors. Vs Sanjana Agarwal and Anr.

Mj Grain Products Pvt. Ltd. Vs Mamata Food Products and Anr.

Khalilur Rahaman and Ors. Vs Serajul MD and Anr.