Sk. Baijul Haque And ANR. v. Tapan Kumar Ghosh

01.04.26 CO. 982 of 2026 Sk. Bajlul Haque & Anr.

D/L Sl-11 Ct. 06 (Samar) V.

Tapan Kumar Ghosh Mr. Prasanta Kumar Banerjee, Mr. Purnankar Biswas, ... for the petitioners.

1. This revisional application is directed against an order dated January 02, 2026 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), 1st Court, Chandernagore, Hooghly in Title Suit No. 169 of 2024 whereby the petitioners' application under Order 14 Rule 2(a) & (b) read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 has been rejected.

2. Learned advocate appearing for the petitioners submits that the address of the defendants as mentioned in the cause title of the plaint would reveal that all of them reside within the jurisdiction of Serampore Police Station and, as such, the suit ought to have been filed in a Court having jurisdiction over such Police Station.

3. Upon perusal of the plaint, it becomes evident that suit has been filed for eviction of the defendants i.e. the petitioners by mentioning that the property falls under the jurisdiction of Bhadreswar Police Station.

4. Both the cause title of the plaint as well as the schedule of the property mentioned in the plaint indicate that the property lies within Bhadreswar

Police Station.

5. The learned Trial Court has analysed the relevant registered deeds of gifts in respect of the property and has found that the property is situated within Mouza Gourhati Champdani, under the jurisdiction of Bhadreswar Police Station. The learned Trial Court has also found that L.R Khatian for L.R Suit Plot No. 6986, which has been settled against L.R. Khatian No. 8869 within J.L No. 221 of Mouza Gourhati Champdani also falls within the jurisdiction of Bhadreswar Police Station. Having recorded all that, the learned Trial Court has a held that since the said learned Court had jurisdiction over Bhadeswar Police Station, it could not be said that the learned Court lacked territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit.

6. That apart, the learned Trial Court has also referred to Section 18 of the Code and reasoned that, in a case, where there is uncertainty and if the Court is satisfied that there is uncertainty, the Court can proceed with the suit, upon recording such fact.

7. The learned Trial Court has upon scanning the documents pertaining to land records as well as the gift deeds arrived at a conclusion that it has jurisdiction to entertain the suit. If both registered deeds as well as land records evince that the suit property falls within the jurisdiction of the learned Court, merely because the Police Station has been

mentioned differently in municipal licences, the Court cannot be said to have fallen in errors.

8. Having considered the material on record and the order impugned, this Court does not find any illegality or material irregularity in the same and that, being so, there is no scope to interfere with the said order.

9. CO. 982 of 2026 stands dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

10.

Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties subject to compliance with all requisite formalities.

(Om Narayan Rai, J.)