SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(Cal) 3828

CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Tirthankar Ghosh, J
Sri Narayan Kamila & Ors. – Appellant
Versus
The State of West Bengal & Ors. – Respondent
WPA 11117 of 2025



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. Amitabha Ghosh, Mr. M. M. Roy
For the Respondents: Mr. Rajarshi Basu, Ms. Sanchayita De, Mr. Narattam Acharyya, Mr. P. Jana

The court emphasized the necessity for jurisdictional oversight in civil disputes where prior orders are violated.

Headnote:In this case, the court addresses the violation of a status quo order issued by a Civil Court, as per TS 204 of 2018. The petitioner contends that private respondents are disregarding this enforceable order. Furthermore, the court notes that the police authorities failed to act despite the petitioner’s complaints. Ultimately, it directs the assignment of the pending case to ensure judicial oversight until a presiding officer is reinstated. The order concludes with the case dismissal under WPA 11117 of 2025, with all pending applications also disposed of.

Mr. Narattam Acharyya Mr. P. Jana … for the respondent nos.7&8 R e The petitioner is aggrieved by the fact that inspite of the direction of status quo passed in TS 204 of 2018 in respect of the scheduled suit property (ka), the private respondents are violating the said order and trying to raise construction.

To that effect, information have been sent to the police authorities. However, the police authorities did not act on such information which is encouraging the private respondents to carry out their acts and activities.

Learned advocate for the private respondents, on the other hand, submits that since the learned Civil Court is already in seisin of the issues, there is hardly any scope for the police authorities or, for that purpose, this writ court to invoke its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India .

Learned advocate for the petitioners, on the contrary, submits that since the learned civil court is lying vacant, they are unable to take out any application under Section 151 of the CPC and/or Order 39 Rule 2A of the CPC for necessary police help for breach of such order passed by the civil court.

Learned advocate for the State, on the other hand, submits a report which reflects that the police authorities have already drawn up a proceeding under Section 126 of the BNSS .

Since a proceeding under Section

126 of the BNSS has been drawn up, the police authorities would continue their surveillance as also ensure that no untoward incident results because of the strained relationship existing between the parties.

Having regard to the agony expressed by the petitioner, I direct the learned District Judge, Purba Medinipur to assign TS 204 of 2018 before a Civil Court which is in-charge, till regular presiding officer joins such Court.

With the aforesaid observations, WPA 11117 of 2025 is disposed of.

Pending application(s), if any, is also disposed of.

Report so submitted be kept with the record. Copy of the report be handed over to both the parties.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top