IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

CIRCUIT BENCH AT JALPAIGURI

CIVIL REVISIONAL JURISDICTION

APPELLATE SIDE

Present: The Hon’ble Justice Partha Sarathi Sen

CO 37 of 2025

With

CAN 1 of 2025

Mridul Kanti Das and Ors.

Vs.

Mosaraf Hossain.

For the petitioners : Mr. Saptangshu Basu , Sr. Adv.,

Mr. Rajat Das, adv.,

Mr. Bijay Bikram Das, Adv.

For the O.P: Mr. Partha Pratim Roy, Adv.,

Mr. Debasish Mukhopadhyay, Adv.,

Ms. Madhushri Dutta, Adv.,

Ms. Shristi Sarkar, Adv.

Last Heard on : 18.08.2025 Judgement on : 21.08.2025

PARTHA SARATHI SEN, J:-

1. In this revisional application as filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India the order no.22 dated 14.01.2025 as passed by the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Jalpaiguri in Title Suit no. 458 of 2022 is

assailed.

2. By the impugned order learned trial court rejected the defendant nos. 38 to 42’s application under Order 7 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure for

return of plaint.

3. The defendant nos. 38 to 42 of the said suit felt aggrieved and thus preferred the instant revisional application.

4. At the time of hearing Mr. Basu, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the revisionists at the very outset draws attention of this Court to the copy of the plaint as filed in Title Suit no. 458 of 2022 before the learned trial court as has been annexed at page nos. 14 to 30 of the instant revisional application.

5. It is submitted by Mr. Basu that from the materials as placed before this Court it would reveal that it is the plaint case that the plaintiff is the owner of the suit property particulars of which has been mentioned in the schedule of the plaint by way of inheritance. It is further submitted by Mr. Basu that from paragraph no.11 of the plaint it would reveal that it is the further plaint case that in respect of the suit property defendant nos.1 to 37 have executed five registered deeds of conveyance in favour of the present revisionists i.e. the defendant nos. 38 to 42.

6. Drawing attention to paragraph no. 10 it is further submitted by Mr. Basu that it is the further plaint case that the plaintiff was unlawfully dispossessed from the suit property by the defendant nos. 38 to 40 and after entering into the suit property the defendant nos. 38 to 40 have constructed a pucca wall over a portion of the suit property and made some pucca corrugated tin shed structure over the self same property.

7. It is the further submission of Mr. Basu that from the prayer portion of the said pliant it would reveal that plaintiff has prayed for declaring the said five registered deeds of conveyance as void and not binding upon the plaintiff with further prayers for recovery of khas possession of the suit property, permanent injunction and other ancillary reliefs.

8. It is submitted by Mr. Basu that on careful perusal of the averments as made in the plaint it would reveal that the alleged act of the defendant nos. 38 to 40 as well as execution of the five registered deed of conveyance by the defendant nos. 1 to 37 in favour of the defendant nos. 38 to 42 have really cast a shadow of doubt in the alleged title of the plaintiff over the suit property and therefore the trial court in order to grant the decree as prayed for ought to have come to a finding regarding the alleged title of the plaintiff over the suit property that is to say by declaring the title of the plaintiff over the suit property.

9. At this juncture Mr. Basu draws attention of this Court to Section 7 (vi) (a) of the West Bengal Court Fees Act, 1970 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Court Fees Act’, in short). It is submitted by Mr. Basu that in the event the provisions of Section 7 (vi) (a) of the Court Fees Act is perused in the context of the plaint case in Title Suit no. 458 of 2022 it would reveal that without declaring the title of the plaintiff over the suit property the relief prayed for in the plaint cannot be granted and therefore the learned trial court while passing the impugned order ought to have considered that the valuation of the said