Smti.Sweta Agarwal v. Smti. Mamta Agarwal
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
[ CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR ] *** CO/31/2025 Smti. Sweta Agarwal Vs.
Smti. Mamta Agarwal Mr. Surajit Samanta ... for the petitioner Mr. N. A. Khan ... for the respondent June 18, 2025 [AKB] Item No.7 This civil revisional application is directed against the order No. 39 dated 04.04.2025 passed by the learned Joint Civil Judge (Senior Division), Port Blair, District South Andaman in Title Suit No. 35 of 2021 renumbered as Title Suit No. 283 of 2024. Mr. Surajit Samanta, learned advocate for the petitioner submits that the petitioner-defendant filed an application before the learned Trial Court on 29.10.2014 for rehearing of injunction and Receiver application and the Receiver filed an application for police help. On 17.01.2025 the said recall application was heard by the learned Trial Court and verbal direction was issued to make payment of Rs.
5000/- to compensate the respondent/plaintiff, which the petitioner-defendant duly complied but there is no reflection of the same in the order sheet and it has only been recorded that 31.01.2025 is the date fixed for hearing the petition for recalling and the application for police help filed by the Receiver. On 31.01.2025 the recalling application filed by the petitioner-defendant was heard by the learned Trial Court and verbally it was allowed. Objection was filed on behalf petitionerdefendant against injunction application as well as Receiver's application. Injunction matter was heard. Receiver's application was also heard. However, there is no reflection in the order sheet. Subsequent thereto, as per verbal direction of the Court the petitioner-defendant deposited another sum of Rs.
20,000/-, but again there is no reflection in the order sheet. He submits that such anomalies in the records of learned Trial Court needs to be corrected.
Mr. N.A.Khan, learned advocate for the respondent-plaintiff at the outset submits that the impugned order under challenge is an order of status quo passed in an application filed by the respondent-plaintiff under order 39 Rule 1 & 2 of the Civil Procedure Code and therefore such order is to be challenged by way of First Appeal and not by a civil revision. He indicates that the issues raised by the petitioner in the present revisional application has also been raised by way of separate applications before the learned Trial Court which is pending disposal and the petitioner cannot vouch identical grievance before two forums for redressal. The present civil revision is filed only to drag and delay the proceedings before the learned Trial Court. He files copy of the applications filed by the petitioner before the learned Trial Court, which is taken on record.
At this stage, Mr Samanta, learned advocate for the petitioner-defendant concedes that so far as challenge to order passed in the injunction application is concerned the same ought to have been made through an appeal. He seeks liberty to take appropriate steps for challenging the impugned order passed in an injunction application by an appeal and also seeks liberty to raise the other issues particularly the grievance of none reflection of verbal direction of court before the learned Trial Court at an appropriate stage.
In view of the above the civil revision being CO/31/2025 is disposed of granting liberty to the petitioner-defendant to take appropriate steps for challenging the impugned order No. 39 dated 04.04.2025 of the learned Trial Court, which is passed in an injunction application in accordance with law, if so advised. Liberty is also granted to the petitioner-defendant to raise such matter as submitted hereinabove before the learned Trial Court. Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order if applied for be supplied to the parties upon compliance of all necessary formalities.
( Bivas Pattanayak, J. )