##PAGE1##

28.01.2026

Item No.05

Ct. No.01

RP

MAT 1898 of 2025

+

IA NO.CAN 1 of 2025

Sankar Majumder & Anr.

VS.

The State of West Bengal & Ors.

Mr. Debasish Sur

Mr. Goutam Sardar

Mr. Dilip Kumar Dan

…For Appellants

Mr. Wasim Ahmed

Sk. Md. Masud

…For State

Mr. Surendra Kumar Sharma

Mr. T. Majumder

…For Respondent Nos.6 & 7

PER, SUJOY PAUL, CJ.:

1. Parties are represented through their respective

learned counsels.

2. Challenge is mounted in this intra-Court appeal

to the order dated 2nd September, 2025 passed

by the learned Single Bench in WPA 22634 of

2024.

3. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that

the learned Single Judge has erred in interfering

with a private dispute and the writ Court is not

the proper remedy for putting somebody back in

2

possession by issuing direction to handover the

materials, jewellery etc.

4. Learned counsel for the writ

petitioners/respondents on the other hand

submits that the present intra-Court appeal

does not disclose that the learned Single Judge

in WPA 22634 of 2024 passed certain interim

orders including the order dated 16th January,

2025, which was called in question in MAT 185

of 2025. The coordinate Bench had declined

interference and directed the writ petitioners to

enter into the property and reside peacefully in

the said property and file affidavit on the next

date of hearing to the effect that they have

entered into the property. This order of the

coordinate Bench, in absence of challenge, has

attained finality.

5. The impugned order dated 02.09.2025 shows

that the learned Single Judge has merely

recorded the finding in presence of the counsel

for the parties that petitioners have already

been put back in possession in the house from

where they were driven out by the private

3

respondents. The appellants did not dispute

such aspect during hearing. Instead he stated

that upon instruction some time may be granted

to his clients for removing articles, which are

inside the room. Accordingly, Court passed the

impugned order.

6. First and foremost requirement on behalf of the

appellants was to disclose complete facts in the

memo of appeal. In all fairness the appellants

ought to have mentioned about filing of MAT

185 of 2025 wherein interlocutory order dated

16th January, 2025 passed in the same writ

petition became the subject matter of challenge.

7. A litigant is under an obligation to approach the

Court with clean hands, clean mind, clean

objective and clean heart. A person who

approaches the Court with a pair of dirty hands

is not entitled to get any relief. The appellants

have suppressed material fact about filing of

MAT 185 of 2025 arising out of same writ

petition wherein certain directions against them

were passed and complied with. Because of

suppression of fact the appellants do not

4

deserve any relief whatsoever. Accordingly, the

appeal and the connected application are

dismissed.

8. Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, if

applied for, be delivered to the learned

advocates for the parties, upon compliance of all

formalities.

[SUJOY PAUL,CJ.]

[PARTHA SARATHI SEN, J.]