District: South 24 Parganas

In The High Court at Calcutta

Civil Revisional Jurisdiction
Appellate Side

C. A. N.

of 2015

In the matter of :
C.O. No.3032 of 2014
- And In the matter of:
Sri Pradip Kumar Dutta
Petitioner
-

Versus

Smt. Sushmita Aich and Others

Opposite Parties
-

And

In the matter of :
An application for Restoration;
- And
Sri Pradip Kumar Dutta,
Son of late Abani Bhushan Dutta,
residing at 91, Bidhan Pally, Police

Station- Bansdroni (formerly Regent

Park), Kolkata- 700 084;
. Applicant
- Versus
1. Smt. Susmita Aich,
Wife

of

Sri

Ajinava

Aich,

residing at 91/A, Bidhan Pally,

Police

Station-

(formerly

Bansdroni

Regent

Park),

Kolkata- 700 084;

2. Smt. Bijoya Sengupta,

Wife of Sri Sadhan Sengupta,
residing

at

1/95,

Naktala,

Police Station- Patuli (formerly

Naktala), Kolkata- 700 047;

3. Smt. Pratima Sarkar,

Wife

of

Sarkar,residing

Sri
at

Tapan
45/15,

Pasupati Bhattacharya Road,

Peara

Bagan

(Muchipara),

Police

Station-

Behala,

Kolkata-700 041;

4. Smt. Ashalata Dutta,

Wife of late Abani Bhusan
Dutta, residing at 91, Bidhan
Pally, Police Station- Bansdroni
(formerly Regent Park),
Kolkata- 700 084.
Respondents

To,
The Honble Mrs. Manjula Chellur, Chief Justice and Her Companion
Justices of the Honble High Court at Calcutta
The humble petition on behalf of
the Applicant above named most
respectfully

S h e w e t h:

1.

Your Petitioner most respectfully states that in the year 2011, the
Petitioner as Plaintiff, instituted a suit against the Opposite

Parties being the Defendants inter alia, for a declaration that

the Defendants have no right title and interest in respect of the
suit property morefully described in the Schedule of the Plaint;
for a decree of permanent injunction restraining the Defendants
and their men and agents from dispossessing the Plaintiff
forcibly from the suit properties morefully described in the
Schedule A and B of the Plaint; for a decree of permanent
injunction restraining the Defendants and their men and agents
from interfering with and/or invading the peaceful user,
enjoyment and occupation of the Plaintiff in respect of the suit
properties morefully described in the Schedule A and B of the
Plaint; for costs; for such other relief or reliefs to which the
Plaintiffs entitled to in law as well as in equity, being Title Suit
No. 1196 of 2011 before the Court of Learned 1 st Civil Judge
(Junior Division) at Alipore (hereinafter referred to as said suit)
and presently pending therein.

2. Your Petitioner most respectfully states that thereafter the

Defendants i.e. the Opposite Parties herein duly entered their
appearances and filed their written statement upon denying and
disputing all the allegations and/or contentions of the Plaintiff
made in the plaint of the said suit.

3. Your Petitioner most respectfully states that the Plaintiff has also
filed an application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 read with
section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure Code for temporary
injunction. Final hearing on such application is still pending.

4. Within this tile, an ad-interim order of status quo was passed by

the Learned Trial Court directing both the parties to maintain
status quo in respect of their respective possessions over both the
suit properties challenging which the Defendants preferred an
appeal before the Learned Lower Appellate Court wherein,
whereby the Learned Lower Appellate Judge has been pleased to
affirm order of the Learned Trial Court and did not interfere in it.

5. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with such, the Defendants,

i.e. the Opposite Parties herein, had moved a civil revisional
application before this Honble Court, wherein Honble Justice
Soumen Sen, upon hearing both the parties, had been pleased to
modify the said order to the effect that the status quo should be
maintained only in respect of the property situated in C.S. Dag
No. 112(P).

6. Your Petitioner most respectfully states that thereafter the

Plaintiff filed an application under Order 39 Rule 7 read with
section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for appointment of
Advocate Commissioner for holding local inspection of both the
Scheduled properties on the points mentioned therein.

7. On 29.04.2015 the instant application for appointment of

Advocate

Commissioner

for

the

purpose

of

holding

local

inspection has came up for hearing before the Learned Trial

Judge, whereby upon hearing both the parties Learned 1 st Civil
Judge (Junior Division) at Alipore had been pleased to reject the
prayer of the Plaintiff/Petitioner for appointment of the Advocate
Commissioner for the purpose of holding local inspection upon
holding the view that the report of the Advocate Commissioner
will be of no use for deciding either of the suit or the injunction
application.

8. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with Order No. 18 dated April

29, 2015 passed by Sri Hiranil Bhattacharjee, Learned 1st Civil
Judge (Junior Division) at Alipore, District-24 Parganas (South) in
Title Suit No. 1196 of 2011, Your Petitioner preferred a civil
revisional application under Article 227 of the constitution of

India being C. O. No. 3097 of 2015 (hereinafter referred to as the

said civil revision).

9. The said civil revisional application came up for hearing before

Honble

Justice

Siddhartha

Chattopadhyay

on

17.12.2015

whereby upon hearing the Petitioner, Honble Justice Siddhartha

Chttopadhyay had been pleased to direct the Petitioner to serve
copy of the said civil revisional application to all the Opposite
Parties and directed the said civil revisional application to come
up after two weeks and accordingly the Petitioner had served the
copies to all the Opposite Parties.

10.

Again, the said civil revisional application came up before

Honble

Justice

Siddhartha

Chattopadhyay

on

22.12.2015,

whereon though the Petitioner was present but inspite of

completed service, no one represented the Opposite Parties.
Thereafter, upon hearing the Petitioner in detail, Honble Justice
Siddhartha Chattopadhyay, again directed the matter to come up
after winter vacation, in the month of January, 2016.

11.

Subsequently, the said civil revisional application came up

in the monthly combined list dated January 4, 2016 before

Honble Justice Siddhartha Chattopadhyay but as January 4,

2015 there was a resolution by the Bar Association for not to

attend, hence the Learned Advocate for the Petitioner could not
appear before the Bench.

12.

Your Petitioner most respectfully states that thereafter the

said civil revisional application came up for hearing before

Honble

Justice

Siddhartha

Chattopadhyay

on

05.01.2016,

however unfortunately, the Learned Lawyer representing the

Petitioner, Mr. Shuvanil Chakraborty, was not able to remain
present before the said Honble Court at the time of the call since
he was engaged in another Court Room in another matter.

13.

That it was later known to the Petitioner that the Honble Justice
Siddhartha Chattopadhyay was pleased to dismiss the said Civil
Revisional

Application

for

default

since

there

was

no

representation on behalf of either of the Petitioner or the

Opposite Parties on the said day that is on 05.01.2016.

14.

That until and unless the order dated 5 th January, 2016 is

recalled and the Civil Revisional Application being C. O. 3079 of
2015 is restored, the Petitioner shall suffer irreparable loss and
injury.

15.

That unless orders as prayed for are passed Your Petitioner will
suffer irreparable loss, prejudice and injury.

16.

That Your Petitioner respectfully submit that this application is

made bona fide and for the end of justice.

In the above facts and circumstances,

Your Petitioner most respectfully and
humbly prays that Your Lordships would
graciously be pleased to recall the order
dated 05.01.2016 as passed by Honble
Justice

Siddhartha

Chattopadhyay

in

C.O. No. 3079 of 2015 and be further

pleased restore the said Civil Revisional
Application for proper adjudication and
provide a chance of hearing to the
Petitioner and pass such order/orders as
the Your Lordships may seem fit and
proper for the ends of justice.

10

And for this act of kindness the Petitioner as in duty bound shall ever
pray.

Affidavit
I, Sri Pradip Kumar Dutta, son of late Abani Bhusan Dutta, aged about
years by faith Hindu, by occupation- retired person, residing at 91,
Bidhan Pally, Police Station- Bansdroni (formerly Regent Park), Kolkata700 84 do hereby solemnly affirm and say as follows :-

1. That I am the Petitioner abovenamed and as such I am fully

conversant with the facts and circumstances of this case, out of which
this instant Revisional petition has arisen and as such I am competent
to affirm this Affidavit on my behalf.

2.

That the statements made in paragraphs Nos. 1 to

are true to

my knowledge and the rests are my humble submissions before this

Hon'ble Court.
Prepared in my office,
The Deponent is known to
me,

Advocate.

Clerk to: Mr.

Advocate.

Solemnly affirmed before me

This the

day of January, 2016

11

Commissioner

District: South 24 Parganas

In The High Court at Calcutta
Civil Revisional Jurisdiction
Appellate Side

C. A. N.

of 2016

C.O. No. 3079 of 2015

In the matter of:

An application for Restoration;
-AndIn the matter of:
Sri Pradip Kumar Dutta
Applicant
-VersusSmt. Sushmita Aich and Others
Respondents

Application

12

Shuvanil Chakraborty, Advocate

Bar Association Room No. 16
High Court, Calcutta