In the High Court at Calcutta

Civil Revisional Jurisdiction

Appellate Side

Present:

THE HON’BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA

Case No.

CO 2234 of 2025

In the matter of :

EXULT REALTY LIMITED

…. Petitioner

VS.

GOURANGAPURKAIT&ANR.

….Opposite Parties

For the Petitioner : Mr. Siddhartha Banerjee

Ms. Soni Ojha

Ms. Sambrita B. Chatterjee

For the Opposite Parties : Mr. Partha Pratim Roy

Mr. Sabyasachi Mondal

Mr. A. S. Fazlul Karim

Mr. Soumen Pradhan

Mr. Sarthak Dey

Mrs. Puja Naskar Ms. Payel Khanra

Heard on : 14^th August, 2025 Judgment on : 14^th August, 2025

Hiranmay Bhattacharyya, J. :

1. This application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India

is at the instance of the defendant and is directed against an

order being no. 119 dated 5^th March, 2025 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), 2^nd Court at Baruipur in Title Suit No. 245 of 2015.

2. By the order impugned, the application under Order XXXIX Rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as “the Code”) stood rejected.

3. The opposite parties herein filed a suit for declaration of title, confirmation of possession and for permanent injunction restraining the petitioner herein from disturbing the peaceful possession of the opposite parties in respect of the suit property. The suit property comprises of three plots of land being R. S. Dag Nos. 1953, 1955 and 1958 within Mouza Kumrakhali under Police Station Sonarpur in the district of South 24 Parganas. It is the case made out in the plaint that one Satish Chandra Purkait was the original owner of the suit property and by virtue of a registered deed of gift dated 9^th July, 1980 the opposite parties acquired title in respect of the suit properties.

4. The petitioner is contesting the said suit by filing a written statement denying the material allegations contained therein. The petitioner’s claim to have become the owners of two of the suit plots being Dag nos.1953 and 1955 along with several other plots of land total measuring 4.369 acres of land by virtue of Court sale. The opposite parties filed an application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code praying for an order of temporary injunction restraining the petitioner and their men and agents from disturbing the peaceful possession of the opposite parties herein in respect of suit property. The petitioner herein is contesting the application for temporary injunction by filing the written objection denying the material allegations contained in the injunction application. It is the specific case made out in the written objection to the injunction application that the petitioner has acquired title in respect of plot nos.1953 and 1955 along with several other plots of land and the suit plots as well as other plots of land have been duly mutated in the name of the petitioner in the records of rights.

5. The petitioner filed an application under Order XXXIX Rule 7 of the Code praying for appointment of an advocate commissioner for the purpose of holding local inspection on the points specifically mentioned in the schedule of the said application.

6. The opposite parties contested the application for local inspection by filing a written objection denying the allegations contained in the application for local inspection.

7. The learned Trial Judge, by the order impugned, rejected the application for local inspection on the ground that the fact of possession of the suit property is a crucial relevant fact to the issue of title of the parties and, therefore, the local inspection for the purpose of collecting information is not permissible.

8. Mr. Banerjee, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner, on instruction, submits that though the petitioner prayed for local inspection on four points but he is restricting his claim with regard to local inspection only with regard to point no.1 of the schedule of the application for local inspection. He further submits that Order XXXIX Rule 7 of the Code permits local inspection to be carried out in respect of properties whic