Meena Choudhary v. Nirmala Choudhary And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

[ CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR ] *** CO/11/2024 Meena Choudary Vs.

Nirmala Choudary and others Ms. Dolly Saha .... for the petitioner Ms. Anjili Nag .... for the respondents April 09, 2024 [SR] Item No.1 The revisional application is directed against the order No.40 dated September 29, 2023 passed in Title Suit No.151 of 2019 pending before the learned Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, South Andaman, Port Blair.

Learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that, the petitioner is the defendant No.2 in the suit. The suit is for declaration of a sale deed to be null and void. The plaintiffs also seek a share of the suit property.

She submits that, the petitioner/defendant no.2 filed a written objection to the application filed under Order 39 Rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Learned advocate appearing for the petitioner/defendant no.2 was not heard by the learned Court and the impugned order was passed. She submits that, the impugned order is vague.

The petitioner/defendant no.2 is in occupation of a large portion of the suit property and that the plaintiffs are occupying a dilapidated portion thereof.

A suit for declaration and partition of the suit property was filed in the year 2018. The same is pending till date.

In the suit, an order of injunction was passed directing the parties to maintain status quo with regard to possession. On an application under Order 39 Rule 7 of the Code Civil Procedure filed at the instance of the plaintiffs in the suit. The learned Court by the impugned order allowed the same. Petitioner/Defendant no.2 filed a written objection in the application under Order 39 Rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. According to the petitioner/Defendant no.2, he was not heard by the learned Court.

In course of hearing of the present revisional application, no point was canvassed before the Court suggesting that the Order 39 Rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 need not be allowed. The application under Order 39 Rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 made at the instance of the plaintiffs in the suit, speaks of the requirement for local inspection to be made in respect of the suit property.

Since the suit involves not only declaration with regard to the sale deed but also partition of the same, it is essential that a local inspection is made. Local inspection is also imperative in view of the subsisting order of injunction.

In such circumstances, I find no material irregularity in the interim order calling for any interference by the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

However, before parting with the matter, one must take note of the fact that the suit is pending since 2018.

Court is informed that, written statement with counterclaim was filed in the suit. The suit is ready for hearing. In such circumstances, the learned Trial Judge is requested to expedite the hearing of the suit. The learned Trial Judge is requested to hear the suit on a day today basis without granting any unnecessary adjournments to any of the parties and endeavour to dispose of the suit preferably within six months from date. Learned advocate appearing for the petitioner/defendant no.2 submits that she does not object the suit being disposed of within six months.

CO/11/2024 is disposed of accordingly.

( Debangsu Basak, J. )