M-13 0077..0099..22002266 Court No. 652 D.Hira CO 4080 of 2025 Niyati Ghosh Vs. Ananda Pramanick Ms. Ipsita Ghosh. … for the petitioner 1. Affidavit-of-service filed by the petitioner in Court today, is taken on record. 2. It appears that in spite of service of notice along with the copy of this civil revision application, none appears for the opposite party. 3. Ms. Ipsita Ghosh, learned advocate is appearing for the petitioner/plaintiff. 4. Hence, the matter is taken up for final consideration. 5. The petitioner is aggrieved as to an order dated February 6,2025 passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), 2nd Court at Kandi, Murshidabad in Title Suit No. 104 of 2017. 6. Fact remains that the petitioner/ plaintiff filed the suit before the learned Trial Court as above, seeking relief that his easementary rights be declared and protected by an order of permanent injunction. 7. Dispute is with regard to ‘kha’ schedule property which is a drain. On the basis of the report of learned Advocate Commissioner, the Court passed its order dated 16th August, 2022, directing the opposite party/defendant to stop construction work 2 immediately and remove the obstruction over the ‘kha’ schedule drain, within thirty (30) days period. 8. It was further directed that compliance report should be filed in the Court, on the following date. 9. Further, an order was passed by the Court on 28th November, 2024 allowing the plaintiff’s petition under Order XXVI Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure and hence, appointing one of the empanelled commissioner of Kandi Court as Investigation Commissioner. 10. It was directed that the Commissioner should submit his report on 19th December, 2024. 11. On the same date, that is, on 28th November, 2024, the Court further directed upon an application filed by the present opposite party/defendant that the Officer- in-Charge, Kandi Police Station should ensure due compliance of the Court’s order and file report in the Court on the date fixed. 12. Pursuant to such direction of the Court, the Officer- in-Charge of the Kandi Police Station files his report in the Court on 6th February, 2025. 13. In the report the police has stated about due compliance of the Court’s order regarding removal of obstruction over the ‘kha’ schedule drain. 14. Further, the Court took into consideration the report of the police that accumulation of drain water whatever was there, was due to plantation of some banana trees by the plaintiff himself. The Court after taking notes of all these facts, has finally directed that 3 the trial should now proceed for determination of the suit. 15. The petitioner/plaintiff is aggrieved that in spite of there being a report of the Commissioner regarding obstruction caused at the instance of the defendant as to the ‘kha’ schedule drain causing immense hardship for day to day life in the plaintiff/petitioner, the Court has erroneously placed reliance upon the report of the Officer-in-Charge which has depicted only false state of affairs. Also that the Court has proceeded to trial of the suit, without directing enforcement of its order dated 16th August, 2022. 16. Hence, the petitioner is aggrieved with the order as above of the Court dated 6th February, 2025. 17. From the submissions as well as facts apparent from the record it revealed that the Court which was supplied with the report of the advocate commissioner, previously directed for removal of any obstruction of ‘kha’ schedule drain within a stipulated time. 18. Since, thereafter, there has been report submitted before the Court by the Police Authority showing due removal of any obstruction over ‘kha’ schedule drain. 19. Considering both the documents, the Court passed required orders from time to time, by exercising its judicious discretion, to which this Court intends not to interfere. It appears that no case is made out as to any jurisdictional or procedural laches allegedly committed by the learned Trial Court in this regard. 4 Hence, the impugned order is not to be interfered into by this Court in the instant revision. 20. However, if the petitioner/plaintiff so advised can move the learned Trial Court for further inspection of the premises to ascertain actual position of the ‘kha’ schedule property, before proceeding with the suit on merits. 21. The present instant revisional application is disposed of with the directions as above. 22. With the aforesaid observations and directions, CO 4080 of 2025 is disposed of. 23. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance with all requisite formalities. (Rai Chattopadhyay, J.)