Ct. No.446 D/L Saikat 09 22.05.2025 CO/3230/2024 HARIPADA NASKAR VS.

BALARAM NASKAR AND ORS.

Mr. Ujjwal Datta, Adv.

Mr. Indranuj Datta, Adv.

...For the Petitioner Mr. Chittapriya Ghosh, Adv.

Mr. Goutam Acharya, Adv.

Ms. Priyanka Saha, Adv.

Ms. Sayani Pan, Adv.

…For the Opposite Party Nos.1 & 5

1. Affidavit-of-service filed by the learned advocate appearing for the petitioner is taken on record.

2. This revisional application has been filed against an order of refusal to the review application against an order of refusal to repair the scheduled portion mentioned in the application filed under section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure. According to the petitioner, schedule of repair of those areas are minor in nature and those are necessary considering ensuing Monsoon season.

3. The petitioner being the plaintiff filed an application to carry out the repairing work at the suit property where he is in possession with the proposed schedule of repairing work which are minor in nature.

4. The learned trial court did not consider the urgency and also on the wrong assumption, was pleased to refuse such prayer with the observation that the plaintiff failed to file any single scrap of papers in support of his contention and also put findings that if the entire repair work is allowed to be done, the suit property would lose its original nature and character.

5. Against that order, a review application dated 11^th May, 2022, under Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure was filed by the plaintiff-petitioner which was heard on 6th February, 2024, and rejected. Being aggrieved by the said order, the instant revisional application has been filed.

6. The learned advocate appearing on behalf of the opposite party Nos.1 and 5 vehemently opposed to the same and has submitted that the schedule mentioned in the review application was silent about any details regarding which such repair is to be taken out. Secondly, the claim of the plaintiff-petitioner that he is the absolute owner of the suit property is strongly denied .It is further contended that the other adjoining persons residing in the said building will be highly prejudiced if such repairing work is permitted and it would amount to change of the nature and character of the entire building.

7. At the outset, it is seen the present opposite parties are only 1 and 5 who are siblings of the proforma opposite party Nos.2 to 4. On perusal of the entire materials on record and the order impugned it appears that order under challenge before this court is the order of rejection of the application to review the order dated 13^th April, 2022, which was passed rejecting the prayer for repairing. Contention of the learned advocate appearing for the petitioner is that the repairs are very minor in nature and according to Rule 11of the West Bengal Municipal (Building) Rules, 2007, permission is not required in respect of erection, re-erection, addition to or alteration of any building which includes repairing work in the nature as mentioned in Clauses (e), (g) and (i) of Sub-Rule 2 of said Rule.

8. The petitioner described the nature of work proposed to be undertaken were (e) re-construction of an existing damaged roof without changing the character and dimension of such roof(g) plastering and patch work (i) replacing of fallen bricks, stones or repairing of damaged pillar or beams and certainly are minor in nature and coming within the purview of the above provision.

9. The application filed under section 151 of the code of civil procedure the nature of repair appears to be plastering both sides of broken brick walls, replacing the clay tiles with corrugate tins or Tata metal sheets on the roof of the two rooms in possession of the plaintiff-petitioner. He also wanted to install iron grill at the existing window in one of the rooms due to safety and security against theft and other problems.

10. Therefore, prima facie the said repairs appears to be minor in nature and such repair works will not change the nature