Mathew Joseph v. Shaktivel And Others

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

[ CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR ] *** CO/31/2026 Mathew Joseph Vs Shaktivel and others Ms. Anjili Nag, Sr. Adv.

Ms. K. Bhawani ... for the petitioner April 28, 2026 [SR] Item No.9 1.

Despite service, none appears for the opposite party. 2.

Learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the owner of Survey plot no. 34/1. However, at the instance of the opposite party no.1, an eviction order was passed against the petitioner in respect of the said property by the Tehsildar. The petitioner, being aggrieved, filed a civil suit before the competent civil court. In the said suit, an interim order of the protection was passed on April 10, 2026, whereas the date fixed for implementation of the eviction order by the Tehsildar was the very next date, that is, April 11, 2026. 3.

It is submitted by the petitioner that despite communication of the civil court's order to the Tehsildar, the Tehsildar went ahead with demolition of a portion of the boundary wall, as well as felling trees on the property allegedly belonging to the present petition.

4.

In the teeth of such allegations, a contempt application was filed. In connection with contempt application, the petitioner also made an application for local inspection, seeking appointment of an Advocate Commissioner for such purpose, before the civil court.

5.

Since the petitioner had certain issues regarding the initial appointment, at the behest of the petitioner, the first Advocate Commissioner was removed. However, the second Advocate Commissioner who was appointed refused to conduct the inspection work.

6.

By the impugned order, the learned Trial Judge appointed the very same Tehsildar, against whom allegation of violation of the Court's order was levelled, as Commissioner instead of an Advocate to hold the local inspection over the suit property. 7.

Learned senior counsel argues that appointment of the said Tehsildar is contrary to basic tenets of natural justice and principles of law since the said Tehsildar is the very same person against whom allegations have been made in the contempt application, in connection in which the local inspection application was filed.

8.

The Court finds substance is the contention of the petitioner, since it will be patently detrimental to all principles of natural justice to appoint the very same person against whom an application for the contempt has been filed alleging wilful disobedience of the order of the Civil Court, in connection with the contempt application itself.

9.

Thus, the impugned order cannot be sustained. 10.

Accordingly, CO/31/2026 is allowed, thereby setting aside the impugned order, bearing Order No. 7 dated April 12, 2026 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division at Port Blair in Title Suit No. 45 of 2026.

11.

The petitioner submits at this juncture that the Trial Court is on the verge of closure for the upcoming summer vacation within two days; hence, it may not be possible for any

learned Advocate from the district Bar to be appointed as Commissioner.

12.

Taking into consideration such aspect of the matter, I hereby appoint Ms. Ananya Biswas, a learned Advocate practising in this Court, as Advocate Commissioner for the purpose to carrying out the local inspection as directed earlier in Title Suit no. 45 of 2026.

13.

The parties and all concerned, including Ms. Ananya Biswas, learned Advocate and the Tehsildar, shall act on the server copy of this order without insisting upon prior production of a certified copy thereof. The learned Advocates appearing for the petitioner are requested to cooperate with the learned Advocate Commissioner by furnishing copies of all relevant papers, including the application for local inspection as well as the order allowing such application and a copy of the plaint of the suit, to the learned Advocate Commissioner at the earliest.

14.

Such local inspection shall be completed as expeditiously as possible upon prior notice to both sides. The remuneration of the learned Advocate Commissioner, appointed above, is hereby fixed at Rs.20,000/-, to be paid to her by the petitioner at or before the time of inspection.

15.

Leave is granted to the learned Advocate Commissioner to approach the local police station, if any resistance is faced by her at the time of such inspection. If such approach is made, the Station House Officer of the local Police Station having jurisdiction, if not available, the next in-charge of the said police station, shall extend all possible police assistance to her for the purpose of completing the inspection work by acting on

the server copy of this order, also without insisting upon prior production of a certified copy thereof.

16.

There will be no order as to costs.

17.

Urgent Photostat certified copies of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance of all requisite formalities.

(Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J.)