JPD -2 Ct No.01

01.08.2025 (sss)

Calcutta High Court In The Circuit Bench at Jalpaiguri Appellate Side CO 90 of 2025 Sri Sanjoy Ghosh and Ors.

Vs.

Sri Chandra Shekhar Choudhary and Ors.

Mr. Sudipto Kumar Mazumder, Sr. Adv.

Mr. Sourab Kar …For the petitioners.

Mr. Milindo Paul, Mr. Sandip Guha Roy, Mr. Subham Das, Mr. Deepsagar Dutta …For the Opposite Parties.

1. The premise of the revisional application is short, but the history is a bit chequered. According to the petitioners, the predecessor-in- interest of the petitioners was a tenant in respect of the suit property under the predecessor-in- interest of the opposite parties. Subsequently, the property was gutted by a fire. Thereafter, the petitioners took a stand that they were in adverse possession of the property.

2. The present suit has been filed by the plaintiffs/opposite parties for permanent injunction restraining the petitioners from making any construction over the suit property without permission of the Siliguri Municipal Corporation and the West Bengal Fire Safety Department.

3. In such suit, an interim order of injunction was obtained to that effect. The learned Trial Judge restrained the defendants/petitioners from making any sort of construction over the suit premises without obtaining prior permission from the Siliguri Municipal Corporation or the West Bengal Fire Safety Department as on that date till disposal of the suit.

4. In the suit, the petitioners have also filed a counter claim, claiming title on the strength of adverse possession. The petitioners also took out an application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking permission to take necessary steps to unclog the drain and repair the existing water connection in the suit premises.

5. Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners contends that whatever remains of the suit premises is being utilized for running a small tea stall by the petitioners and as such, water is an essential commodity. Since there was an existing water connection and drainage system all along and the petitioners’ possession of the property has not been disputed as such, it is contended that the learned Trial Judge acted without jurisdiction in refusing such prayer merely on the ground of suppression of the fact that there is an subsisting demolition order from the Siliguri Municipal Corporation.

6. However, it is submitted by the petitioners that the said demolition order was subjected to a challenge before this court in a writ petition. In connection with the said writ petition, an interim order was passed to the effect that no coercive action shall be taken on the basis of the demolition order.

7. As such, non-disclosure of such fact was not germane.

8. Learned counsel for the opposite parties opposes the prayer made in the revisional application and submits that after the premises were razed by fire and turned to ashes, no construction remains on the same, apart from an illegally constructed temporary tin structure, and if a water connection is sought to be made now, it will tantamount to a new construction. It is submitted that it will be a contradiction in terms if in a premises which is under injunction from making further construction, in the garb of repairing water connection, a fresh construction is permitted to be made.

9. Learned counsel further submits that the demolition order still subsists and was a germane consideration. The suppression of the said fact before the learned Trial Judge by the petitioners tantamounted to a suppression of material fact and the learned Trial Judge was justified in refusing the permission prayed for by the petitioners, since there is already an existing demolition order.

10. Upon considering the submissions of the parties, it transpires that the injunction which has been passed in the suit restrains the defendants/petitioners only from making “any sorts of construction” over the suit premises without prior permission from the Siliguri Municipal Corporation or the West Bengal F