Disposed¶22

Jugal Kishore Gupta and Ors. v. Banibrata Gupta

Calcutta HC6 Feb 2026CO/3293/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

WBPT Act 1997 — defendant/opposite party's application under Sections 7(1) & 7(2) held not maintainable in a suit for eviction of trespasser and recovery of khas possession that was not filed under Section 6; Section 7 provisions prima facie inapplicable to suits outside Section 6; Trial Court order (Civil Judge JD, 2nd Court, Sealdah, July 26, 2024, Title Suit No.153 of 2020) set aside; revision disposed with direction to conclude suit preferably within one year.

What did the court decide?

Setting aside of the Trial Court's order dated July 26, 2024; the civil revision disposed of with a direction to the Trial Court to proceed with the suit expeditiously and dispose of it preferably within one year; applications connected thereto disposed of consequently; interim order, if any, vacated. ¶22

Jugal Kishore Gupta and Ors. Vs Banibrata Gupta — Calcutta HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶22

Issue for consideration

Whether the application filed by the defendant/opposite party under Sections 7(1) and 7(2) of the WBPT Act is maintainable in a suit for eviction of a trespasser that was not filed under Section 6 of the WBPT Act.

¶18

Court's answer

Since the suit before the Trial Court is admittedly not a suit for eviction filed under Section 6 of the WBPT Act, the provisions of Section 7 of the WBPT Act, 1997 are prima facie not applicable to it.

¶18

Ratio / Principle

An application under Sections 7(1) and 7(2) of the WBPT Act filed by the defendant/opposite party is not maintainable in the said suit, as the suit has not been filed under the WBPT Act.

¶21

Key takeaways

The Trial Court's order (rejecting the plaintiffs'/petitioners' maintainability challenge and fixing hearing of the defendants' WBPT Act application) is not in accordance with law and is set aside.ratio¶19

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Civil revision C.O. 3293 of 2024 (decided 06.02.2026 by Shampa Dutt (Paul), J.) against an order dated July 26, 2024 of the Civil Judge (Junior Division), 2nd Court, Sealdah in Title Suit No.153 of 2020, whereby the Trial Court had rejected the plaintiff/petitioners' application challenging the maintainability of the defendants' petition under Sections 7(1) & 7(2) of the WBPT Act and fixed a hearing date. Held: the suit is one for eviction of a trespasser and recovery of khas possession and was admittedly not filed under Section 6 of the WBPT Act, 1997; hence the provisions of Section 7 are prima facie inapplicable, and the defendant/opposite party's application under Sections 7(1) and 7(2) of the WBPT Act is not maintainable in a suit not filed under the WBPT Act. The Trial Court's order, being not in accordance with law, is set aside. The civil revision is disposed of with a direction to the Trial Court to dispose of the suit preferably within one year; connected applications stand disposed of; interim order, if any, stands vacated.

¶1

06.02.2026 Ct. No. 30 SL No. 38

¶2

MKP

¶3

CO/3293/2024

¶4

Jugal Kishore Gupta And Ors

¶5

Vs.

¶6

Banibrata Gupta

¶7

Mr. Tarak Nath Halder

¶8

……………for the Petitioners

¶9

Mr. Subhangi Bhattacharya

¶10

……………..for the Opposite Party

¶11

1. The civil revision has been preferred against an order dated July 26, 2024 passed by the Learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), 2^nd Court, Sealdah, District-South 24 Parganas in Title Suit No.153 of 2020.

¶12

2. It appears from the impugned order that the Learned Trial Court has rejected the plaintiff/petitioners application

¶13

challenging the maintainability of the defendants petition under Section 7(1) & 7(2) of the WBPT Act. The Trial Court has also fixed the date for hearing of the said application under Sections 7(1) and 7(2) of the WBPT Act. Being aggrieved, the revisional application has been preferred.

¶14

¶15

3. On hearing the Learned Counsels for the parties and on perusal of the material on record, it appears that the suit before the Trial Court is a suit for eviction of trespasser and recovery of khas possession.

¶16

4. The plaintiff/petitioner submits that it is his suit and as he has not filed the same under the provision of Section 6 of the WBPT Act, 1997, defendants application under Section 7(1) and Section 7(2) of the WBPT Act, is not maintainable in the present case.

¶17

5. It is further submitted that in case the defendant makes out a case before the Trial Court that he is a lawful tenant in the suit premises, under Section 2(9) of the WBPT Act, then the plaintiff/petitioners suit shall be liable to be dismissed and the plaintiff/petitioner is willing to take the said risk.

¶18

6. Admittedly, the suit is not a suit for eviction filed under Section 6 of the WBPT Act and as such, the provision of Section 7 of the WBPT Act, 1997 is prima facie not applicable in the present case.

¶19

7. The order of the Trial Court thus being not in accordance with law, is set aside

¶20

¶21

for the reason that an application under Section 7(1) and 7(2) of the WBPT Act as filed by the defendant/opposite party herein, is not maintainable in the said suit, which has not been filed under the WBPT Act.

¶22

8. Considering that the suit is pending for a long period, the civil revision is disposed of with the direction that the Trial Court shall proceed with the suit expeditiously and make all endeavour to dispose of the same preferably within 1(one) year from the date of this order.

¶23

9. C.O. 3293 of 2024 is disposed of.

¶24

10. Applications, if any, connected thereto stand disposed of consequently.

¶25

11. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.

¶26

12. Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties on priority basis upon compliance of all formalities.

¶27

[Shampa Dutt (Paul). J]

Jugal Kishore Gupta and Ors. v. Banibrata Gupta

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jugal Kishore Gupta and Ors. v. Banibrata Gupta

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

Sushital Kumar Mondal and Ors. Vs Union of India and Ors.

Swapan Kumar Chowdhury Vs Ashok Kumar Goswami Alias Ashok Goswami

Arib Shalam Fakih @ Arib Fakih Vs State of West Bengal and Anr.

Jay Jay Ram Ray Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.

Jagabandhu Saha Vs Union of India and Ors.

Praveen Singhania Vs Khusboo Singhania