Marjina Bibi And ORS v. Osman Sarkar And ORS

08.12.2025 Item no.DL 9 Court No. 16 Asraf, A.R.(Ct.) In the High Court at Calcutta Special Civil Jurisdiction Appellate Side Case No.

RVW 279 of 2025 with CAN 1 of 2025 WPLRT 117 of 2025 In the matter of :

MARJINA BIBI & ORS.

.... Applicants VS.

OSMAN SARKAR & ORS.

....Respondents For the Applicants :

Mr. Mrinal Kanti Ghosh Ms. Gopa Mainan ....Advocates For the Respondents :

Mr. Sudeep Sanyal Mr. Sukanta Das Mr. Chandrachur Lahiri Ms. Ketaki Ghosh ....Advocates For the State :

Mr. Supratim Dhar, Sr. Advocate Mr. Santimay Bhattacharyya ....Advocates 1.

Affidavit of service filed in Court today is taken on record.

2.

Learned counsel for the applicants argues in support of the review application that the review applicants failed to bring to the notice of this Court, at the time when the judgment sought to be reviewed was passed, that a title appeal had been preferred against a decree obtained by the respondents connection with a suit for

declaration and injunction, further directing the applicant to vacate the suit property, connection with which an order of stay of operation of such decree has been passed by the Appellate Court.

3.

Secondly, it is contended that a co-ordinate Bench judgment of this Court was not pointed out to the Court, as per which the Tribunal does not have the power to grant police help.

4.

Learned counsel appearing for the respondents controverts such submissions and places reliance on Rule 8(2) of the West Bengal Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal Rules, 1997, which specifically empowers the Tribunal to grant police help if necessary to deliver possession in pursuance of an order of the Tribunal.

5.

Insofar as the co-ordinate Bench judgment is concerned, the same was not placed before us at the relevant point of time by the review applicant. In the event all judgments subsisting at the point of time when an order under review was passed but not cited before the court are permitted to be cited at the review stage, there would be no finality to litigation and the entire arguments would be reopened, leading to a de novo hearing, which would be palpably de hors the scope of the review jurisdiction.

6.

That apart, by virtue of Rule 8(2) of the 1997 Rules, there is ample power vested in the Tribunal to grant police help in consonance with our direction.

7.

Insofar as the stay order purportedly passed in an appeal against a decree which directed the review applicant to vacate the premises is concerned, the order now sought to be reviewed was not premised on the Civil Court's decree, nor was by way of an implementation or execution of the said decree, but was passed independently connection with a completely different proceeding. Thus, the said decree of the Civil Court and / or any order of stay thereof, passed in appeal, merely implies that the said decree cannot be executed, which has no bearing at all on the present consideration.

8.

Thus, the review application fails on both counts. 9.

Accordingly, RVW 279 of 2025 is dismissed on contest without any order as to costs.

10. Consequentially, CAN 1 of 2025 is disposed of as well.

( Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J. ) (Uday Kumar, J.)