M/S Laxmi Stores Rep By Manohar Lall v. Vinay Lall

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

[CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR] *** CO/28/2025 M/S Laxmi Stores Rep by Manohar Lall Vs Vinay Lall Mr. Rohit Das (through virtual mode) Mr. Anil Kumar Chakraborty ... for the petitioner Ms. Babita Das ... for the opposite party June 30, 2025 [AKB] Item No.6 Mr. Rohit Das, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner.

Ms. Babita Das, learned advocate appearing for the opposite party.

The plaintiff/petitioner has filed the present application challenging the order passed by the learned Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division at Port Blair dated 22nd April, 2025 wherein the learned Judge has allowed the defendant to make construction of staircase in the tenanted premises within three months from the date of this order with the condition that it covers only considerable area and not to hamper and temper the business including access to the tenanted premises. Mr. Rohit Das, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that the learned Judge has passed the order without giving an opportunity of hearing. He submits that on 22nd April, 2025 the matter was fixed

before the learned Court for clarification and acceptance of the report submitted by the Commissioner and on the same day the defendant had filed an application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure praying for allowing the defendant to construct the staircase as per the report submitted by the Commissioner.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that if the defendant is allowed to construct the staircase, the tenanted premises of the petitioner and the business of the petitioner will be badly hampered.

Per contra, Ms. Babita Das, learned advocate appearing for the opposite party/defendant submits that in terms of the order passed by the learned Judge dated 22nd April, 2025 the defendant has already constructed staircase and on 19.06.2025 has filed compliance report before the learned Court. She submits that the staircase constructed by the defendant will not in any way hamper or temper the business of the plaintiff or create any problem to access the tenanted premises.

Heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties, perused the impugned order dated 22nd April, 2025 and the report of the learned Commissioner. Before filing an application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the defendant had filed an application for appointment of Commissioner.

The Commissioner has submitted the report on 24th July,

2024. The finding of the learned Commissioner is as follows :- "That from the commissioner work undergone by me and after assessing the ground reality of the structure situated over the suit property, it can be clearly ascertained that the defendant's only option to get safe and sustainable access to the first floor that is to his residence is by erecting a staircase in front of the tenanted premises of the plaintiff. However, the said proposed staircase has to be of a standard measurement no exceeding the width of 1 meter, such that it will grant access to the defendant and at the same time will not hamper the business of the plaintiff."

On receipt of the report from Commissioner, the defendant has filed an application under Section 151 of the CPC praying for construction of the staircase as per the report of the Commissioner and the learned Judge considering the report has allowed the petition filed by the defendant for construction of the staircase.

This Court finds that in the impugned order the learned Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division has categorically held that the construction of the staircase will be only considerable area and will not hamper and temper the business including the access to the tenanted premises and in terms of the order passed by the learned Judge, the defendant has already constructed the staircase and has filed the report before the learned Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division at Port Blair on 19th June, 2025.

Considering the above, this Court finds that nothing remains in the civil revision application preferred by the petitioner. However, the petitioner will be at liberty if in future the petitioner finds that due to the staircase constructed by the defendant will hamper or temper the business of the petitioner or create any difficulties to access the tenanted premises, the petitioner shall be at liberty to take appropriate steps in accordance with law. Accordingly, CO/28/2025 is disposed of.

(Krishna Rao, J.)