Form No. J.(2)

Item No.20 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CIVIL REVISIONAL JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE Present:

THE HON’BLE JUSTICE MD. SHABBAR RASHIDI C.O. 3122 of 2023 Sahadeb Pal & Ors.

Vs.

Joydeb Pal & Ors For the Petitioners : Mr. Arindam Das Mrs. Ananya Chakraborty Ms. Dibyanjona Das For the Respondents : Mr. Mohan Kr. Sanyal Mr. Dwaipayan Sanyal Mr. Arunesh Pathak Hearing Concluded on : 16.04.2025 Judgment on : 16.04.2025 Md. Shabbar Rashidi, J. :-

1. The instant revisional application is directed against an order No.63 dated 5th April, 2022 passed in Partition Suit No.250 of 2014.

2. It is the case of the petitioners that the petitioners/plaintiffs filed a partition suit being Title Suit No. 250 of 2014. It was the case of the plaintiffs thereon that the specific shares in the suit properties devolved upon the plaintiffs by several purchase deeds from different sharers in the said properties. Similarly, defendants also acquired shares in the suit properties by a number of sale deeds executed by its erstwhile owners. The suit was decreed on contest against defendant Nos. 1 to 10 and 15 and ex-parte against the rest of the defendants in the preliminary form by the judgment and order dated June 29, 2016.

The operating portion of the judgment dated June 29, 2016 reads as follows:-

“that the suit be and the same is decreed on contest against defendants Nos. 1 to 10 and 15 and ex-parte against the rest in preliminary form in favour of plaintiffs however without any order as to costs.

Plaintiffs Nos. 1 to 3 do get a joint decree of 15.75 decimal of land in the suit plot. Plaintiffs Nos. 4 and 5, taken as single unit, do get a decree in respect of 4.75 decimal of land. Plaintiffs Nos. 6 to 8 do get a decree in respect of 8.74 decimal of land and defendants Nos. 1 to 10 jointly do get a decree in respect of rest of the suit plot i.e. 9.76 decimal of land.

The parties hereto are directed to get the suit property amicably partitioned by metes and bounds amongst them within 3 (three) months from the date of order, failing which, either of the parties would be at liberty to approach the Court for execution of the decree by appointment of a Ld. Advocate Commissioner by metes and bounds following the established rules of partition and the said Advocate Commissioner will effect the partition making allotment keeping the respective possession of the parties as far as practicable.”

3. Since the parties were granted liberty to amicably partition the suit properties by metes and bounds in terms of the shares declared in the preliminary decree and such amicable partition could not be effected, the plaintiffs/petitioners filed an application before learned Trial Court for appointment of survey knowing Partition Commissioner to carve out separate shares of the plaintiffs/petitioners in the suit property in terms of their declared shares in the preliminary decree.

4. In pursuance of such petition, a Partition Commissioner was appointed by learned Trial Court. Writ of commissions was issued accordingly. Learned Partition Commissioner, upon conducting survey of the properties involved in Partition Suit No. 250 of 2014 submitted his report along with a drawn-to-scale map showing the allotment of the shares of the petitioners/plaintiffs on May 20, 2017.

5. Defendants/opposite party Nos. 1 to 10 and 15 took out an exception to the reports so submitted by learned Partition Commissioner. Learned Trial Court proceeded to consider the objection so raised by the aforesaid defendants. The Partition Commissioner was cross-examined on behalf of the objecting defendants in respect of objections raised on their behalf.

6. By the impugned order No. 63 dated April 5, 2022, learned Trial Court, upon consideration of the objections raised on behalf of the defendant Nos. 1 to 5 and 10 as well as the cross-examination of learned Partition Commissioner rejected the report submitted on February 20, 2017.

7. The aforesaid order directing rejection of the Commissioner’s report has b