IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CIVIL REVISIONAL JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE Before:

The Hon’ble Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya CO 2628 of 2025 Akankha Nirman Private Limited & Anr.

Vs.

M/s. Supreme Construction & Ors.

For the Petitioners : Mr. Aniruddha Chatterjee, Sr. Advocate Mr. Abir Lal Chakraborty Mr. Suman Banerjee ….. advocates For the Opposite Parties : Mr. Piyush Chaturvedi, Sr. Advocate Ms. Debapriya Ghosh Mr. Vinayak Chaturvedi …… advocates Reserved on : 10.02.2026 Judgment on : 12.02.2026 Hiranmay Bhattacharyya, J.:-

1. This application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is at the instance of the defendants and is directed against the judgment and order dated June 25, 2025 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) Chandannagore, Hooghly in Misc. Appeal No. 13 of 2023 affirming the Order No. 07 dated 24.04.2023 passed by the Learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) 1^st Court, Chandannagore, Hooghly in Title Suit No. 64 of 2022.

2. The learned Trial Judge rejected the application under Sections 5 and 8 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 in a suit for mandatory injunction and, by the impugned order, the Learned Judge of the First Appellate Court affirmed the order of the trial judge.

3. Opposite Party nos. 1 to 5 herein filed Title Suit No. 64 of 2022 for a decree of mandatory injunction directing the petitioners to return the documents as mentioned in Schedule B of the plaint to the opposite parties and to prohibit the petitioner from claiming any right on the basis of documents mentioned in B Schedule of the plaint.

4. The case made out by the opposite parties in the plaint of the said suit in a nutshell is as follows-

5. The opposite party firm became the absolute owner of the A Schedule property by virtue of a sale deed being No. 491 of 2005. After several negotiations between the parties, a development agreement dated 07.03.2012 was executed by and between the opposite party firm and the petitioner company. After execution of the development agreement, the opposite party firm handed over the original documents, as mentioned in Schedule B to the plaint, to the then director of the petitioner no. 1 company as per the request made by the petitioner no. 1 company. Though the opposite party firm delivered permissive possession in favour of the petitioner no. 1 company, but the petitioner no. 1 company without assigning any reason whatsoever, abandoned and left the A schedule property and withdrew their staff therefrom and did not make any endeavour for development of the A Schedule property.

6. The opposite party firm was compelled to serve a legal notice dated

21.04.2021 through their learned advocate for termination and cancellation of the unregistered development agreement dated 07.03.2012 and return back all the original documents mentioned in Schedule B.

7. Alleging that the petitioners are withholding the Schedule B documents wrongfully and illegally, in spite of a demand for return of the documents by the legal notice, the instant suit has been filed.

8. On receipt of the summons of the suit, petitioners filed an application under Section 5 and 8 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short “A&C Act”) praying for stay of all further proceedings of the suit and to refer the parties to Arbitration in view of the existence of the Arbitration clause in the Development Agreement dated 07.03.2012.

9. Opposite parties contested the said application by filing a written objection denying the material allegation contained in the said application.

10. The learned trial judge noted that the present cause of the opposite parties case is founded upon the return of certain documents which were purportedly kept in the custody of the petitioner during the course of such construction and which is alleged to be in their custody till date. The learned trial judge rejected the application under Section 5 and 8 of the A & C Act by the order dated 24.04.2023 upon holding that the present difference of non-retur